Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Legal aspects of ritual slaughter is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Legal aspects of ritual slaughter is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legal aspects of ritual slaughter article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


Contents

[edit] Removed material

I removed the following sentence since it doesn't really seem to fit. --Deodar 00:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"A neo-Nazi magazine in 2004 made the accusation that the Jack the Ripper murders were an extension of kosher slaughter and that this proved that the perpetrator was Jewish. (ref www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=109901)"
Seems more like delusion to me, although I am afraid there are plenty of people who believe it. -- Avi 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben. It turned up when I did an internet trawl but I agree that it is too off-the-wall extremist to be noted here. Itsmejudith 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this fits in this section. Should the image of the conveyor slaughter system really have a picture of a cow smiling in it? It's a little non-nuteral IMO.14:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.223.204 (talk)

[edit] Country/Chronological or a Topical structure?

I ran into this issue on a previous article (see Talk:Academic_boycotts_of_Israel#Balancing chronological verse topical article structure). Should one favor a chronological structure or a topical structure or how does one achieve balance between the two? I would like to cover the BNP support for the animal welfare proposals in both the anti-semitism subsections of the debate section as well as within the British-specific country. Same with the perspective of the animal welfare advocates - both within the country-specific sections and in the topically organized debate section. --Deodar 03:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage of Historical Bans and Motivations

I think there is some value in adding some coverage of historical bans. I understand from reading one source that there was a historical ban in enacted in Nazi Germany. I am not sure, but I would doubt that any bans enacted prior to the 1960s were motivated primarily by animal welfare concerns, society at the time was not that concerned about such things. It may be necessary to threat these historical bans somewhat differently -- maybe split up the debate section into "modern" and "historical" divisions. Or related to the previous question, we can do away with the debate section completely and just deal with a straight country/chronological presentation. --Deodar 03:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The solution may be to get rid of most of the "Modern Debate" section -- just integrate the specifics into the country debates -- and just briefly mention that there are trends in the change of motivations for the bans over time - reduced prominence of anti-Semitism as motivation and a rise of a focus on animal welfare. That said, there seems to be serious questions raised about specific cases of Spain and Switzerland given their respective contexts as Foxman correctly points out. --Deodar 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material, replaced with condensed "Trends" overview

As per my last comment, I have replaced the below with the condensed trends overview section. This is just an experiment. --Deodar 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend putting at least some of this back in - the article reads as very heavily biased without it. I will try to dig up the facts I was given on the subject as well, and put them in. FlaviaR FlaviaR 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Counterclaims that methods are humane
Kosher and Halal butchers deny their method of killing animals is cruel in response to the FAWC report.[1]
The BBC related the opinion of one rabbi with over 40 years of experience with the Jewish traditional method:
"The process takes a fraction of a second. With a very, very sharp knife all the vessels in the neck are severed and that means there's no blood going to the brain and the animal loses consciousness very rapidly and dies soon after that."[1]
Dr Majid Katme, spokeperson for the Muslim Council of Britain, issues a statement that:
"It's a sudden and quick hemorrhage. A quick loss of blood pressure and the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain."[1]
Concerns over Anti-Semitism
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League says that the bans came about due to animal rights campaigners being "aided and abetted" by anti-Semitic politicians:
"Sometimes anti-Semites will use this as a vehicle to try to isolate the Jewish community by reaching out to those who are so preoccupied with [animal rights] [...] The key is whether or not there is a history in that country. [...] What other issues of animal rights have they engaged in to prohibit cruelty? When they begin and end with kosher slaughter, that's when I become suspect." [2]
Rabbi Menachem Genack, the kashrut administrator for the Orthodox Union said of the bans: "It's ominous [...] This kind of legislation in Europe has to be understood in the context of European history. A person would have to be extremely naive not to think that this is linked to anti-Semitism."[2]
Concerns over anti-Muslim sentiment
BBC reported the sentiments of one Muslim worshipper at the Central London Mosque: "Everything about the Islamic way of life is under attack so it makes you wonder if this is actually about humanity to animals."[1]
Restriction of religious freedoms
"This is a trend that is very much worrying us," said Avi Beker, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, "we regard this as interference in Jewish religious practices."
"Jews across Europe are today becoming increasingly alarmed that concerns over animal welfare are taking precedent over a freedom of religion."[3]

[edit] References

Something has gone dreadfully wrong with the references. It seems the original refs got deleted, and those drawing back on them now have no content. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All the references except #15 seem to be OK. #15 is an undefined named reference and needs to be fixed. --John Nagle 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humane methods of kosher slaughter

Added material about humane methods of kosher slaughter. Temple Grandin, who is both an animal rights activist and a slaughterhouse designer, has worked out in detail how to do this without terrifying the animals while they're still alive. --John Nagle 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the definitive reference: "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists." This article, from "Meat Focus International", will tell you more than you probably want to know about how to properly design and run the killing floor of a kosher slaughterhouse.

Grandin's conclusion is that it's quite possible to do kosher slaughter humanely, but it takes proper plant design, equipment, and staff training to do it right. --John Nagle 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe that it would be in the spirit of Judaism to do so. Originally, kosher slaughter was introduced to lessen the suffering of animals, who before the passage of these laws could be killed in any way the owner deemed fit. Kosher laws forced farmers in Biblical times to kill the animal with one cut (when done properly, the animal would lose consciousness immediately as a result of the sudden drop in blood pressure). Problem is, this form of killing did not take into account abattoirs, where animals are slaughtered en-mass. The mass-production techniques that were introduced in the last centuries made it a terrible ordeal for the animals (also for non-kosher slaughter, by the way). I can’t believe that this cannot be improved on, and I can’t believe that we can’t find a way to have the animal unconscious before its throat is cut. It would be in the spirit of the original kosher slaughter laws to lessen the suffering of the animal yet further, and it would augment Judaism’s ban on cruelty to animals (which in Judaism is a great sin you could go to hell for). Jimmy1988 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, liberate your thinking mind! You can't mix religion and reason - religious belief is the suspension of reasonable objection in favour of doctrine. You have only three options: accept Judaism and schachten literally and reject reason (so your point is moot); reject Judaism (and all religion) and accept reason (in which case you'd be vegan, so you wouldn't be supporting slaughter); or be a hypocrite (in which case your point is meaningless). Perhaps there's too much reason in that for a religious audience, but I hope you see the futility of your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.238.99 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia???

"While Scandinavian countries that have adopted or maintained the ban have strong records of upholding animal welfare, Switzerland and Spain do not. Spain has yet to adopt a national animal welfare law. And such practices as bull fighting and the summer fiestas where goats and donkeys are thrown from the tops of towers have earned Spain fierce condemnation from animal protection groups worldwide. Where some see animal protection, Rabbi Jeremy Rosen sees nothing of the kind."

So a quotation from some uninformed person is enough for wikipedia?

Besides the common european animal welfare law, in Spain every autonomous community has animal welfare laws. And throwing donkeys from the top of towers??? Maybe in 1950 (and by the way, the donkey/goat survived).

Shame on any human being that causes pain to an animal just because of some religious belief. And shame on the EU council for allowing it...satanist who kill babies should try the freedom of religion excuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.168.173 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Active bans ?

I do not think that there is any ban of kosher and/or halal slaughter in France.

"stunning is mandatory except for ritual slaughter (...) Muslim of jewish ritual slaughter must be carried out in a slaughterhouse, by slaughterpersons authorised by certified religious organisations." (see this page in French from the ministry of agriculture web site) AFAIK, French authorities only request hygienic and safety regulations to be met.

So I recommend France be removed of the list of countries banning ritual slaughter --Geo115fr 14:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the paragraph that said: "In the past decade, four European countries - Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands..." It is a little sneaky to mention country names and then not give any details/source below about the bans they supposedly practice. Of the four mentioned above, only the Netherlands has an entry below that discusses this ban further. Jimmy1988 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


With regards to Spain, the situation seems to differ from the description. According to a report of the French national institute on agriculture research (INRA)[1], ritual slaughter is allowed for sheeps and goats. I translate pages 9-10 : "Sweden, Norway, Island and Switzerland as well as six austrian provinces does not allow any exemption to pre mortem stunning of the animal. Conversely, this exemption is granted in France, UK, Belgium, Danemark, Italy, Ireland, Netherland, Portugal and Spain. Conditions for exemption are not always the same in all countries. For instance, in Spain exemptions only apply to ovine and caprine but not to cattle."
So I recommend to write that Spain does not ban ritual slaughter except for cattle. --Geo115fr 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I suggest to rewrite the chapter "active bans"

Justifications are : content relate to past and not current situation, is not sourced or is biaised, is limited to jewish ritual.

New content :

Within Europe, the legal situation of ritual slaughters differs from country to country :

  • in Netherland, halal slaughter includes some pre-mortem stunning [10].
  • Spain allows ritual slaughter for ovine and caprine but not for cattle[5].
  • the situation in Greece is disputed : it bans ritual slaughter according to a report from the EU commission[11], but an official Italian report says the opposite[4].


The part about the United States remained unchanged

[edit] Biased article: too much talk about anti-semitism, too little about animal welfare concerns

There is too much emphasis on the fact that various anti-semitic and islamophobic groups support the bans. No doubt they do, but they are just a small minority of the population. The reason there are bans on ritual slaughter in Western Europe is not racism but animal welfare concerns.

"Norway’s ban on ritual slaughter was introduced at the start of World War II." And had its "origins in the blatant anti-Semitism of that time."[7]

"The former chief rabbi of Norway, Michael Melchior, argues that anti-Semitism is one motive for the bans "I won't say this is the only motivation, but it's certainly no coincidence that one of the first things Nazi Germany forbade was kosher slaughter. I also know that during the original debate on this issue in Norway, where shechitah has been banned since 1930, one of the parliamentarians said straight out, 'If they don't like it, let them go live somewhere else.'"[5]"

This has no relevance for the situation today. If it is to be included at all, it should be in the historical section. Besides, it is badly written and cites only one source who holds very controversial views.

These claims are more or less conspiracy theories:

"Rabbi Melchior, who was serving as Israeli deputy foreign minister at the time of the Dutch debate, also said "they simply don't want foreigners and they don't want Jews."..."The lie that ritual slaughter is cruel simply shows a hatred for Jewish life.""

Settembrini 02:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - portions of this article seem intended to link animal welfare concerns with bigotry. eg "Consistent support of bans from anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic groups". We'd not link a campaigner for human rights with racists - why should we do so for humanists seeking (whether logically or not) protection of animals? These activists may be woolly-minded and laughably wrong - but that's no excuse to slur them personally. PalestineRemembered 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, since these bans very regularly turn out to be bigotry related. And the one marked as a "conspiracy theory" is proven true when you look at everything Melchior said.FlaviaR 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c d Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end', BBC News, June 10 2003, accessed September 18 2006
  2. ^ a b Dickter, Adam, Fear over European kosher bans, World Jewish Review, July 2002
  3. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named VeganRepresents
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Italian bioethic comitee Report on Ritual slaughtering and animal suffering, Annex 3
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m New stakes on muslim ritual slaughter
    pages 9-10 "Sweden, Norway, Island and Switzerland as well as six austrian provinces does not allow any exemption to pre mortem stunning of the animal. Conversely, this exemption is granted in France, UK, Belgium, Danemark, Italy, Ireland, Netherland, Portugal and Spain. Conditions for exemption are not always the same in all countries. For instance, in Spain exemptions only apply to ovine and caprine but not to cattle."
    page 14 "Enventually, in 2002, the German constitutionnal court granted to a Muslim butcher the right to slaughter without stunning similarly to Jewish butchers"
  6. ^ EU Commission report on Animal Health in Austria
  7. ^ a b c d e European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter, Explanatory Report, article 17
  8. ^ US Religious Freedom Report 2006 for Sweden
  9. ^ US Religious Freedom Report 2006 for Switzerland
  10. ^ EU Commission report on Animal Health in the Netherland
  11. ^ EU Commission report on Animal Health in Greece


--Geo115fr 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

What, exactly, does the Temple Grandin excerpt have to do with the permissibility of kosher slaughter? The conditions she describes are not religiously mandated; the passage merely describes the problematic operating procedures of one slaughterhouse that happened to be a kosher one. Flourdustedhazzn 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

unless her comments are had a notable impact anywhere they should be removed. Jon513 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Grandin is probably the world's leading expert on humane slaughter. She designs slaughterhouses and animal handling facilities. She convinced the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement to revise their position on kosher slaughter, as noted in the article. She's had more impact on actual animal handling than anyone else cited. --John Nagle 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment by IP

I have removed comments posted by some IP address (217.21.232.237 (talk · contribs) and 213.212.1.52 (talk · contribs) (diff of additions). Some of the comments were in the middle of other people's statements giving the false impression that the other person said them, and making it impossible to find or read or understand what is being said. Overall I don't think that the comment said anything related to changes the article, and it seems to me like trolling - other are invited to look at the diff and decide for themselves. Jon513 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clean up

This article is in terrible need of cleanup. I plan on doing a major rewrite on it soon and I would like help. First of all the article is very bias. It does not present both sides of the debate about whether ritual slaughter is cruel or pain, but simply presents Temple Grandin about everything as if she is the sole source of true. Also it is horriblly organized, repeating much information and leaving out other. I suggest a rewrite as follow:

  • a summary of Jewish and Islamic law on the topic, and explanation of why the animal cannot be stunned then cut. Also pointing out more liberal religious views
  • a background section detailing both sides of the argument, and accusation of anti-antisemitism and xenophobia.
  • particular bans list chronologically.

I would appreciate any input on the subject. Jon513 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing your edits. But please don't add too much detail about Jewish and Islamic law, because there are articles for each of these, and this article is about the bans. Itsmejudith 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed "Some claim that these early bans on kosher slaughter stem from [[anti-Semitism]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}" line in "Trends". That was both uncited and WP:WEASEL. This fixed the last "citation needed" item in the article. It might be appropriate to put something properly cited in its place. Also fixed a link typo. --John Nagle 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian paper on contemporary ban 1995 on religious slaughter overturned by German Federal Constitutional Court 2002

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FCCC%2FCCC40_01%2FS0008938907000295a.pdf&code=d6c0cdb2fce57c4a28e851f47f408cbf

The above is a paper from the University of Sydney (John Smith) explaining why the Greens have changed their position after a decision in the German Federal Court to overturn a ban aimed at the Muslim community. Greens now support the implementation of schächten the German equivalent of Swedish schäktning having reversed their previous position to avoid the xenophobic motives and to support multiculturalism.

For large animals, techniques were developed in the nineteenth century that used clubs, hammers, or pole-axes to strike the animal’s forehead, rendering it unconscious before its sticking and exsanguination. Later, gas and electricity would also be used as stunning tools, depending on the animal. Humane, animal welfare objectives were not, however, the only perceived advantages of the new technique. A key rationale was to prevent injury to slaughtermen from the violent and unpredictable reflex actions of the animal.6 Economy was also a consideration. An effectively stunned animal could be rendered unconscious, then stuck and bled, ensuring worker welfare and better efficiency as population growth, wealth, and urbanization increased demand for meat.7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.1.52 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the German Constitutional Court in 2002 overturning a 1995 German ban enacted in the Federal Court.


[edit] Did big revert

Over the weekend, there were many edits by anon 213.212.1.52 (talk · contribs), essentially rewriting the article and leaving the article in a messed-up state. (Someone then added a "cleanup" tag.) This anon has a vandalism history. See User talk:213.212.1.52. The anon made no comments in talk. There might be some useful content in those edits; it wasn't blatant vandalism. But it seemed better to go all the way back so we can pick and choose from the new information added. Some discussion before making that many edits would be appropriate. Thanks. --John Nagle 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To Ron Nagle

Yes, this is me ... anon. You have not read the talk page properly and my contributions to it. You have not responded to any of my comments on the talk page.

I have at great length contributed to the discussion page without receiving any response:

1) By all means quote Temple Grandin's main arguments, but what is quoted is cruelty in a kosher abbatoir caused by the bad handling of animals.

Grandin has no criticism of kosher slaughter as such, except that she tweaks it a bit - read her article.

At the same time, Grandin makes the point that slaughtering with a knife is perferable to stunning when stunning is improperly done. How often is this? Being an academic, Grandin does not say.

But she happened to be involved in inspection facilites where this was so.

To criticise one particular facility and to criticise animal handling techniques is fair and proper - but, to present this as a criticism of religious slaughter under the heading:


[edit] Criticism

defies logic, and evades the main argument.


I have previously put in material - lots of it with links into the discussion, but you have not used any of it.


In fact, Grandin supports shehitah and has done a lot of work designing handling apparatus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.127.255.15 (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copy of letter

The article is controversial in itself, and peppered with errors, some of them due to non-Jews tackling a Jewish subject (Jewish slaughter) and not having basic fundamental concepts. Jewish custom and Jewish law are specific categories and are not interchangeable. To learn about this, you need ~to know about Jewish law. How current Jewish praxis (halakhah) is derived: There are four sources: 1) Law from the written Torah 2)Oral law by tradition from Moses codified in the Talmud 3) Custom (minhag) derived from customs and traditions. Occasionally a custom - like covering the head at all times becomes Law (din). Then there is Law derived from rabbinic decisions (din shederabbanan) like washing the hands. Jewish kosher slaughter is not based on custom (minhag) but on Law (din) from the Written Law. The details are in the Oral Law passed down by word of mouth and finally, when it was feared it might be lost, codified and written down in the Mishna - the central portion of the Talmud, in Tractate Chulin. The word *custom in the article should be changed to law.e article starts:

The first ban was in the Kingdom of Saxony in 1892, and in Switzerland in 1893. From the late 19th century. not "onward", either, - Jews were banned from slaughtering and circumcising under the Greeks - see Books of the Macabees.

Bans on cruel inhuman ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the early 1900s onward, resulting in the prohibition or limiting of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious customs Jewish religious customs are called minhag (singular) and minhagim (plural) An example of a Jewish custom is to always have a head covering. Jewish slaughter is prescribed by Torah law - the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Therefore a change should be that the word custom be struck out and the word law inserted.

  • Ron Nagle, the sculptor, has nothing to do with this.
  • My patience is exhausted - and I cannot explain every change from the ground up. e.g. Why "Jewish Law" and not "Jewish custom"? The whole point of Wikipedia is that you have to provide specific cites to sources. See WP:V. This isn't a blog.
  • It is physically impossible to explain, point for point to a non-Jew each and every item, and the structure it rests on. It may be a writing challenge to do that, but it's necessary here. Wikipedia has good articles on Special relativity and Introduction to quantum mechanics, which are far more difficult subjects. Many other Wikipedia editors write on Jewish-related subjects and are able to create readable articles for a general audience.
  • If you're going to edit Wikipedia regularly, please register for a Wikipedia account. Then you get an identity and a talk page, and others can communicate with you easily. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted my comments that John Nagle refers to here RPSM 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Please may I contribute this information:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E0DE1F30E233A25752C2A9619C946697D6CF

the above link is for an abstract, and a pdf of the (short) article is at:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E00E0DE1F30E233A25752C2A9619C946697D6CF&oref=slogin where in 1907 Jews are barred from Juries in the Kingdom of Saxony. It was in the Kingdom of Saxony that the activities of the anti-Semites pushed through a ban on kosher slaughter: Two dates appear for the ban on kosher slaughter in Saxony: 1892 and 1897 - and I have not finally determined the date of the ban. At any rate, the article on Bans on Ritual Slaughter should mention WHERE and WHEN these bans were first introduced. At present Switzerland is mentioned - the Kingdom of Saxony is not. A paper done by a Harvard student: http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/700/Gurtman05.rtf. an exerpt:

"While Switzerland was the first country to pass anti-shehitah legislation in 1893,77 the first time shehitah became an issue of parliamentary discussion was in the Landtag of Baden, in Germany in 1864. A bill to require stunning prior to slaughter was introduced in the house, but was defeated.78 The issue arose once again in 1887 in the German Reichstag. The German Animal Protection Societies petitioned the Reichstag regarding the treatment of animals, requesting that a law be passed requiring that animals be rendered unconscious prior to their slaughter. However, this proposal was postponed with regard to its effects on shehitah, by an almost unanimous vote.79 ' The only pre-Hitler anti-shehitah regulation was a decree issued by the Minister of the Interior, Herr von Metzsch, of the Kingdom of Saxony in 1892,80 and was finally repealed in 1910.81 This ruling required that all animals other than fowl be rendered unconscious by a slaughtering mask before being bled.82 This anti-shehitah legislation was interpreted as a reflection of the anti-Semitic sentiment in Saxony at that time.' However, a somewhat, though not completely, different sentiment was revealed in other districts. In 1893, The Minister of the Interior of Prussia issued an order annulling all local shehitah prohibitions.83 Anti- shehitah legislation was proposed in the Petition Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of Bavaria in February 1894, the Landtag of Schwartzburg-Sonderhausen in July 1897, the Landesversammlung of the Duchy of Brunswick in March 1898, the Landtag of Baden in April 1899, the Landtag of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in December 1899, and in the German Reichstag in February 1897, and again in January and April of 1899. All of these proposals were defeated.84 However, the motivation behind their proposals was mostly interpreted as anti-Semitic.85
Not all directives were proposed with anti-shehitah motivation. The Minister of the Interior of Wuerttemburg issued a slaughtering order in 1903, which both required stunning prior to slaughter and exempted shehitah from that requirement in the following paragraph. Additionally, the throat cutting method without stunning, similar to the shehitah method, was approved by the Prussian military authorities and became mandatory in factories producing preserved meats for the Prussian army, due to the humane and hygienic nature of this slaughtering method.86 On January 12, 1911, the Reichstag adopted an amendment to Article 360 of the new criminal code, which read, “State regulations which interfere with the ritual prescriptions of any religious groups in the matter of animal slaughtering are not allowable.”

This same paper seems to mention places where kosher slaughter (called shehitah in the paper) was prohibited. Why does the article start with Switzerland and 1897? Both the banning of Jews from Juries in 1907 and as lay judges in Saxony, as well as the ban on schächten in 1892 in the Kingdom of Saxony, are evidence of the activities of the anti-Semites there. Perhaps a place for the activities of this society or these societies could find a place somewhere in Wikipedia. It is a distortion of reality to isolate bans on ritual slaughter as an independent subject with a history no older than the 30s. Anti- shehitah legislation was proposed in the Petition Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of Bavaria in February 1894, the Landtag of Schwartzburg-Sonderhausen in July 1897, the Landesversammlung of the Duchy of Brunswick in March 1898, the Landtag of Baden in April 1899, the Landtag of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in December 1899, and in the German Reichstag in February 1897, and again in January and April of 1899. All of these proposals were defeated.84 —Preceding unsignedHello, anybody listening? Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter Ronit Gurtman Class of 2005 April 2005 Combined Course and Third-Year Work

http://leda.law harvard.edu/leda/data/700/Gurtman05.rtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.127.255.15 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • A student term paper is not a reliable source per se WP:RS.
  • If you are not fluent in English, you might try editing the Wikipedia for another language. Then leave a note here, and we can have your writing translated.
  • Please, register for an account. Wikipedia works much better if you register and others can communicate with you. --John Nagle 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ok -(a student term paper is not a reliable source...)

I first discovered this information from a statement in the Upper House of the Swedish Riksdag, and have not been able to find it again. There was a peer in the House who said that at that time, only Sachsen and Switzerland had banned schäktning, and nowhere else and it was around 1904 I believe. There is a third source and that is the book "Beef and Politics" I have also quoted. The peer in the Swedish Riksdag also mentioned that it was mostly the anti-Semites (that is official anti-Semitic Societies) that had been behind the ban. Not a term paper at the Law School at Harvard? Oh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RPSM 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (post- signed) was 15 October 2007

[edit] missing citations?

Sorry, I don't have the time to look into it right now, but 2 of the citations appear to have either never had any text, or to have lost their text during the recent massive reëditing of the article. Tomertalk 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan web sites and Active Ban in United States

Hi I removed content sourced from partisan web sites per WP:V and WP:RS. I also removed a section listing the United States as a country with an active ban. It is widely known that this is not true. Controversial subjects require being especially careful about sourcing, see WP:NOT#SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Grandin

I see that part of the material in the United States section represents the views of Temple Grandin, sourced from his own website. While this is undoubtedly a notable individual, the question here is his influence on legislation worldwide, not simply his views on the subject. I would suggest sourcing information about his influence from journalistic media and similar sources. --Shirahadasha 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and controversial subjects

I would suggest providing a distinct section on views favoring and opposing bans with appropriate coverage to each, rather than interleaving these views (particularly views in a single direction) into expositions of the various national laws. In particular, I would avoid representations that bans were enacted or voted down because of particular views unless there are independent sources indicating that this was the case. --Shirahadasha 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please hold off on big deletions

Big deletions of cited material aren't a good idea. I undid the last big deletion, but restored the new text that contributed to the article. I also added another reference to Temple Grandin and the Orthodox Union in the Agriprocessors mess. Incidentally, Temple Grandin is female.

Also, the ref numbers are somehow out of sync. I'll try to fix that. --John Nagle 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up the "ref" tags; no more big red error messages. When doing edits, please be more careful of the formatting. Thanks. --John Nagle 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, please stop breaking the "ref" tags.. Learn how to use the editing system, please. We have two big red error messages in the article again. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

Neutrality and quality of sourcing of article have been disputed. Comments are requested on the current state of the article and ways of improving it. --Shirahadasha 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We have 25 references. We have references from the governments of the US and the EU. We have comments from the Orthodox Union and the CJLS. We have comments from the left and the right. We have references to animal rights groups and slaughterhouse designers. We have press references from the BBC and Modiya. We have engineering drawings of slaughterhouse machinery. What, exactly, is the problem? --John Nagle 05:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
John, this article only presents one side of an issue. When bans are proposed, there are reasons and efforts against the ban, but these are not (or hardly) mentioned. Contrast with Shechita, an article about ritual slaughter and its criticisms. Based on content (not editing history), this article looks very much like a POV fork. Furthermore, in the debate over banning, the supporters of ritual slaughter would appear to have the upper hand in practice/politics. So, this fork looks like an attempt to give undue weight to a significant minority position. Please don't misconstrue my concerns, this is clearly a notable issue. However, my suggestion would be either to develop this into an article on Ritual slaughter in general, or, much more realistically, give full weight to the explication of the anti-ban viewpoint. Sound fair? HG | Talk 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, I double bracketed "Ritual slaughter" assuming there's no such article. Instead, it redirects to Animal sacrifice. How weird biased! Anyway, that's a separate issue, or is it part of this dispute too? HG | Talk 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've turned Ritual slaughter into a disambiguation. In the future, in could become a full-fledge article incorporating the full topic, with 3 spin-off articles already written. HG | Talk 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The claim that it represents "only one side of an issue" seems strained. The article is more about problems with and regulation of ritual slaughter. If it was a one-sided article, there's be a big section on the evils, religious and otherwise, of eating meat. See this article in Tikkun for that position.[2]. Or see "Beef", by Jeremy Rifkin.
There are whole areas of criticism that aren't even mentioned, like the collision between the Orthodox Union and the Food Marketing Institute.[3] (“the implication of the FMI audit document is that certain practices that our religious authorities may deem essential to our faith would be incompatible with your organization’s understanding of “humane”.) Even the Jerusalem Post is critical of kosher slaughter as practiced, and of the Israeli rabbinate positions on the subject.[4]
There is overlap with the Shechita article, but because both Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter need to be addressed, some of that is unavoidable. One option would be to move "Bans on Ritual Slaughter" to "Ritual Slaughter", with "See Also" sections for Shechita and dhabiĥa. (The main article should be one with an English title, since this is the English Wikipedia and the Wikipedia search engine runs on article titles.) --John Nagle 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
John recommended moving=renaming this (Bans...) article into Ritual slaughter. I, HG said: "In principle, the rename (move) makes sense to me, since I'd be assuming that the article could then provide broader coverage of ritual slaughter, maybe its history and scope, its regulation, pro/con's, etc. Is that what you had in mind, John?" John replied: "More or less. Let's see what happens. We can probably put most of the existing material under a heading like "regulation of ritual slaughter"." So, he and I agree on moving/renaming. (Our conversation here.) John's recommendation could resolve the (my) neutrality concerns, since the new article under a more neutral title could shift what I saw as one-sidedness. Presumably, it would contain history, pro's and con's, regulations, bans, and other subtopics common to multiple forms of ritual slaughter, as well as summary style mention of its spin-off articles, Shechita and Ḏabīḥah. What do folks think of renaming to Ritual slaughter as a way of easing the disputed neutrality and scope? HG | Talk 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of merging this into Ritual slaughter, and bringing in also Comparison of Dhabiha and Kashrut. Put everything together that relates to slaughter in Islam and Judaism and then see whether there is too much for one article and if so how it should be split. Easiest way to avoid POV-forking. Itsmejudith 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Starting with complete ignorance of the subject, I've just read the article for the first time, and my opinion is that every Temple Grandin quote, and the entire first paragraph of the Criticism section dealing with her, should be excised. Her quotes are understandably emotional, vividly illustrating why she would crusade against certain forms of ritual slaughter -- but I don't see how they illustrate any Legal aspects of ritual slaughter, and I do see them as adding a slant to the overall tone of the article. Her apparently large role as an activist should not be omitted, but can be much more NPOV and doesn't require quotes. -- ShaneCarey (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Temple Grandin isn't an "activist". She's a slaughterhouse designer, and a sizable fraction of US meat plants use her designs or equipment. She's been trying to resolve the issues of reconciling religious traditions, animal welfare, government regulation, and packing plant operations. She seems to be succeeding. Nobody else is having as much success in that area in getting the opposing sides to agree. She got the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and major slaughterhouses to agree on humane kosher slaughter. That's significant. ---- John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is. And your entire response is, for this article, a much more appropriate description of her involvement than any quote about the sickening horrors she's witnessed. -- ShaneCarey (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important source

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/jewish_social_studies/v010/10.1judd.html

Judd, Robin The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Butchering Debates in Germany Jewish Social Studies - Volume 10, Number 1, Fall 2003 (New Series), pp. 117-150

Indiana University Press

Robin Judd - The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Butchering Debates in Germany - Jewish Social Studies 10:1 Jewish Social Studies 10.1 (2003) 117-150 The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Butchering Debates in Germany Robin Judd During the 1880s and early 1890s, animal-protection, veterinarian, and antisemitic societies in Saxony, and in much of Germany, lobbied for slaughterhouse reforms. ..................................................................................................RobertPS 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) This work was cited by the Italian Government paper which I as anon have quoted above.

For clarification - while Switzerland was the first country to ban ritual slaughter, Saxony (not a country, but one of many Duchies and Kingdoms that constituted Germany) was the first place to do so.RobertPS 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit deleting Jewish and Muslim customs and inserting Jewish and Muslim law

Both Judaism and Islam rest on legal systems.

In both Judaism and Islam there is an important distinction between Law and Custom.

Both the articles on Shehithah and Dabihah point out that slaughter is according to Law (not custom).

83.241.234.2 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bans on ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the early 1900s onward, resulting in the prohibition or limiting of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious traditions ("laws").

This is the present reading of the article.RPSM 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

John, I understand that you dispute that slaughter is done according to Jewish law and according to Muslim law, and you prefer to call it tradition, and then put "law" in quotes.

There is an article by Rabbi David Rosen pointing out that Jews and Muslims both have a legal framework on two levels Jews: Torah law and Oral Law, and Muslims from the Koran and the Hadith. They are somewhat parallel.

Christians place more emphasis on belief and conviction. And Refom Jews joined them in abandoning Torah Law. So Refom Jews are not parallel with Muslims in this respect.

Perhaps I should contribute an article on Jewish Law and custom. I have explained this already as anon from this POP address. Why do I have to repeat myself?

Both the articles on Shehitah, and Dahibah point out that it is Jewish Law and Muslim Law that is concerned here.

Custom is also important (minhag) but distinct.

First, you have Torah she b'al peh. the oral law (by word of mouth). This is superior to and takes precedence to

Torah shekatuv (the written Law)

In the case of shehitah, the written text says: You are to slaughter in the way I have shown you.", and here the Oral Law steps in with the details of how to, and how not to slaughter.

If you are not certain of this yourself, ask any of the knowledgeable people who have edited the Jewish sections.

RPSM 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) (I was previously RobertPS

Text at present:

resulting in the prohibition or limiting of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious traditions ("laws").

Yes, this is very unwieldy altogether. The Jewish and Islamic laws give guidance on how to slaughter. To prohibit slaughtering in this manner, the Jewish and Muslim laws are not prohibited or limited, a situation is created in which it is impossible for them to be applied.

There is indeed a clash between two legal systems. More later.

RPSM 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The present text reads:

"Bans on ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the late 1890s onward, resulting in the prohibition or limiting of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious law."

No, Jewish law (halakha) and Muslim law (shariya?) are unaffected.

(The Saxony ban was 1892, and that is the early 1890s. Why not delete late?)


In Jewish law, and in Muslim law, a Jew or a Muslim is obliged to obey the law of the country or area where he or she resides.

This was done to avoid conflicts between two legal systems.

European governments cannot limit Torah law. It is not the law they are limiting or prohibiting, but the killing of animals for food by Jews, as well as the disability in a common area - that of trade.

It was common in many countries to prohibit the sale of meat killed by Jews. The present bans limit Jewish activity in the area of food processing in these countries by Jews.

The Jewish law is not affected (some Muslims are allowed to eat any meat killed by a Muslim, Jew, or Christian)

Without the true evolution of these bans in Anti-Semitic Societies in Saxony and Switzerland, the article is worthless.

From Yad Vashem site:

http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1933-1938/1933/chronology_1933_9.html


"April 21: Jewish ritual slaughter banned


Jewish ritual slaughter was fallaciously portrayed by Nazi propaganda as a cruelty that inflicted much suffering on animals. On April 21, Jewish ritual slaughter was banned in Germany. Some slaughterers continued to work secretly, in order to provide observant Jews with kosher meat. However, as Jews were gradually ousted from the livestock trade, this became increasingly difficult"


RPSM 11:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)(Previously anon)

[edit] Article does not inform - is more a debating forum than a source of information

The article is not informative, does not reflect facts - such as the origins of the bans being in antisemitic societies in Saxony - Saxony's ban in 1892, and is a total mess.

Small details are disproportionate, and large important simple facts - eg which countries ban religious slaughter? cannot be gleaned from the article.

Best to scrap it.

It is already merged into the article on Antisemitism. RPSM 12:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Any comments from editors who have edited on other subjects? --John Nagle 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


RPSM 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)



http://www.islamawareness.net/Food/unite.html

This link retains an article from the Independent.

reference no 6 is wrong - the link is wrong. The quote is not there.

RPSM 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


footnote 9

http://modiya.nyu.edu/handle/1964/489

This is where the dates in the article have been sourced from, but they conflict with the Harvard Term paper, which quotes sources (bibliography missing): modiya has no sources.

modiya gives 1897 for Switzerland. Harvard paper - 1893.

RPSM 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] change of signature

My comments as Robert PS

are by me - now RPSM 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the first ban on shehitah was in one Swiss canton, and Reform Jews supported it date:

This is from the term paper:

Freedman, supra, at 35-36. Rabbi Isaac Lewin, Rabbi Michael L Munk, & Rabbi Jeremiah J. Berman, Religious Freedom: The Right to Practice Shehitah 28-33 (1946). The Berlin correspondent of the “Frankfurter Zeitung,” commented in the August 22, 1893 issue, “When one examines the matter closely and weighs the men who promote and defend the petitions against Shehitah, one cannot avoid the conclusion that what we witness in Switzerland is anti-Semitism using the guise of humanitarianism. This anti-Semitism seeks to win for its purposes sentimental people who are innocent of the subject of animal slaughtering, but who, when once won over, are used to demonstrate the size of the opposition to Jews.” Id., at 31. Berman, supra, at 238.

83.241.234.2 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronit Gurtman's term paper at Harvard - Switzerland 1867 is first date of shehitah ban in one Swiss canton.

Switzerland

In September 1893, Switzerland became the first government to introduce humane slaughter legislation, requiring that the animal be stunned prior to slaughter, so that the animal would be insensible to pain. ...

In 1867 shehitah was prohibited by law in Aargau and St. Gall....

... two reform rabbis of the German Haskallah (enlightenment) movement, which rejected all Jewish dietary laws, Leopold Stein of Frankfort and J. Stern of Stuttgart, issued a statement that shehitah was not a religious precept.

RPSM 14:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference used by Ronit Gurtman (I think)

Bloch Pub. Co. Shehitah By Jeremiah Joseph Berman Published 1941 Bloch Pub. Co.

Shehitah: A Study in the Cultural and Social Life of the Jewish People By Jeremiah Joseph Berman


Has 15 pages on Switzerland. ¨ Gurtman has no bibliography on the web, but I think this looks like the reference.

Found on Google book search, but copyright restrictions do not permit searching the book.

Gurtman has extensive quotes blow by blow of development in Switzerland. RPSM 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

..................................§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§.................................

Farm Animal Welfare Council

FAWC Secretariat

7th Floor

1A Page Street

London

SW1P 4PQ


Report on the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods,1985

This is the only information available (hard copy only) available from the FAWC Secretariat on religious slaughter. RPSM 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The following link is in working order as today's date:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Food/unite.html

and reprints an article in The Independent (Paul Vallely) at the time of the Farmers' Welfare Council recommendations to the UK government. 11 June 2003

RPSM 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LEDA document:

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/search/toc.php3?handle=HLS.Library.Leda/gurtmanr-shehitah_jewish_ritual

This paper by Ronit Gurtman quotes sections from Jeremiah Joseph Berman: Shehitah (1941) that gives a detailed and accurate history of shehitah bans.

RPSM 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"The first documented expression of condemnation for the sale of Jewish meat to Christians was in an epistle entitled, “On the Insolence of the Jews,” sent to Emperor Louis the Pious by Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons in the year 829. Agobard complained that “when Jews slaughter an animal, having a defect, they sell the meat to Christians, and in their pride call the animals, meat for Christians, ‘christina pecora.” While Emperor Louis the Pious paid little attention to Agobard’s complaints, this was the beginning of an onslaught of Church and royal decrees throughout Europe for many hundreds of years forbidding the sale of Jewish meat to Christians, and in many cases forbidding the practice of Shehitah altogether."

Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter, Ronit Gurtman

Berman: Shehitah at 217. (Citing Charles J. Hefele, “Histoire des Conciles,” Vol. 4. Edited by Leclercq, Paris 1911. Quoting Migne P.L. t 104 col 69 ff).

RPSM 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does there have to be a time limit back in time to talk about bans connected with shehitah?



RPSM 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I do not think it is possible to improve on the historical account given by Berman in Shehitah, as 1941 was closer to the time when the first modern bans were enacted starting in 1867 (two Swiss cantons) The Farmers' Animal Welfare Council at their site have nothing now available later than 1985 on religious slaughter. The references in the article are outdated and have been corrupted - some of them culled from newpaper or BBC articles that are only available for a limited time.

The debate in 2003 in the UK was simply because this advisory body FAWC recommended banning shehitah, and this was investigated and rejected by the UK government. Case closed.

Topical newpaper debates that are out of date are unsuitable for inclusion in an Encyclopedia, unless they have lasting historical significance.


RPSM 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

reference: The politics of beef: Animal advocacy and the kosher butchering debates in Germany JUDD Robin ; Jewish social studies. New series ISSN : 0021-6704, Cote INIST : 24843 Indiana University 2003, vol. 10, no1, pp. 117-150 (PERIODIQUE) (35400011691517,0050) RPSM 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another view

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_factory/ALL/923//

Autumn 2003 Outrage (Animal Aid's quarterly magazine)

A recent report on the slaughter of 'red meat animals' by the government's official advisory body on agriculture offered 308 recommendations as to how the annual killing of millions of cattle, sheep and pigs can be done more decorously.

Inevitably, all of the media attention settled on just one of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations - a ban on slaughter without pre-stunning, as practiced by Muslims and Jews.

On behalf of Animal Aid I joined in the debate following publication of the FAWC report - first, with a letter to The Times newspaper and then in a 15 minute debate on Sky Television with senior figures from the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

In both forums I declared that religious slaughter is a vile and merciless way to treat animals, but that I also have concerns about the way bigots jump on the 'ritual slaughter' bandwagon. As to 'humane' British killing, I have personally visited six slaughterhouses and seen, for instance, pigs shackled upside down by one leg, their throats slashed and gushing blood. I've seen them slip from their shackles and crash head first on to the concrete, thrashing desperately and with blood pouring from their throat wounds. This is 'humane slaughter'. At one slaughterhouse I saw a man with a stick mindlessly beat every animal he unloaded from a transporter. At another, I saw a crippled pig kneed and kicked along an aisle to the place where she was subjected to electrical stunning.

The great conceit of 'humane slaughter' is that stunning renders animals immediately 'insensible' so that they feel nothing when the knife is drawn across their necks.

I am not remotely convinced that the captive bolt (used on cattle) or the electrical 'stun' is effective. The bolt often fails to hit the target square-on. And sending a massive electric shock through an animal's head seems merely to cause another level of trauma that momentarily freezes them physically. Gassing produces its own intractable problems. I base my views on what I have personally seen, on conversations I've had with a scientist at Bristol University who undertook killing experiments, as well as a reading of scientific papers on the subject.

No doubt the introduction of 'stunning' was an attempt to remove some of the horror from the killing business. But whether the frayed sensibilities of the meat-eating public was the prime concern or the suffering of the animals themselves, is difficult to judge. Equally, the introduction of Halal and Shechita slaughter - both of which call for a sharp knife and a clean cut - were also billed as improvements on the old even more nightmarish methods.

I don't know which of the 'new improved' methods is worse. But I do know that both are grotesquely cruel and unjustified. We do not need to eat meat. We are better off without it. Nor can I stomach hearing protagonists of religious slaughter claiming their method is swift and painless - when the evidence shows that animals can take minutes to die, are often cut about the neck numerous times rather than the prescribed one clean cut; and young calves can actually choke to death on their own blood.

The horrors of 'humane' slaughter are also many and palpable, as outlined above. The most dangerous element of the debate that followed publication of the FAWC report was the way the FAWC chairwoman rushed from broadcast studio to print journalist contrasting the horrors of the religious method with the caring, beneficent despatch that is supposedly the hallmark of killing factories operating the good old British system. In other words, she used the spectre of 'ritual' slaughter to sanitise a method employed to kill the vast majority of animals in this country. How convenient, given that, with a couple of exceptions, the FAWC council is composed of men and women who profit from the production, transport, dealing and killing of farmed animals.

Andrew Tyler Director, Animal Aid

RPSM 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stupid stupid stupid

"Within Europe, the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country :

Some countries allow ritual slaughter: France,[9][10] Germany,[10] United Kingdom,[9][10] Belgium,[9][10] Italy,[10] Ireland,[9][10] Portugal.[9][10]"

Do you know where Europe is?

There are about 50 or so countries in Europe. see Wikipedia List of countries in Europe. About five of them ban religious slaughter.

Iceland (I have heard somewhere, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, some parts of Austria etc.

now what is 50 minus 5?

Isn't it 45?

So why have you written "Some countries allow ritual slaughter?"

Shouldn't this be: Most countries allow ritual slaughter? (45 out of 50).

"Some" I would think is used for two or three up to say one-third of the total.

You have only listed seven countries out of 45.

To list them all is a pointless exercise - why?

stupid stupid stupid.

regards,

RPSM 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) By way of clarification, my heading "stupid, stupid, stupid" refers to methodology (setting up categories in tabular form for all existing bans (i.e. - every contry in the world bar 5 (Switzerland, Norway Sweden and Iceland [and Spain for cattle]) and then not mentioning which countries they are - it is NOT meant to refer to a person. RPSM (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


"Most recently, the debate was reignited by the findings of a 2003 report by the UK government funded Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC)."

No, not most recently - it's 2007. WAKE UP!

This is an Encyclopaedia, not a blogg.

Recently the Titanic crashed into an iceberg.

RPSM 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


"Consistent support of bans from anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic groups The far-right British National Front (NF) party, via offering support to the animal welfare groups in their opposition to the ritual slaughter of animals, was able to target Jews "and Muslims.[23] An official NF publication at the time announced:

"All the Jews have to do is stop this barbaric and torturous murder of defenceless animals. When they cease the slaughter the NF will cease its campaign. Until then the NF campaign for animal welfare will continue."[23] Similar support was offered to animal welfare groups in the mid-1990s by the successor to the National Front, the British National Party (BNP). A report on anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom from the Israel-based Stephen Roth Institute detailed the familiar tactics of the BNP:"

Yes yes yes, but the first bans in Saxony and Switzerland were originated by anti-Semitic societies in these countries. The term anti-Semite did not have the derogatory tenor that it has now, post-Holocaust. It was a new Racially-Hygienically Correct term, and those who formed these societies were proud to call themselves anti-Semites, defending the purity of their race.

Tracing the true history of these bans is tracing the course of active anti-Semitism in Europe.

Firstly, two Swiss cantons (Aragon and St Gall) in 1867, Saxony in 1892, Switzerland in 1893, and the whole of Germany on 21 April 1933, Poland when it was overrun by Germany - the first country to be occupied by the Nazis, and then all the countries occupied by the Axis powers. The bans were lifted by the Allied forces when they liberated these countries. RPSM 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Within Europe, the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country : "Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland as well as six Austrian provinces allow no exemption to pre-mortem stunning of the animal."

This is not true.

83.241.234.2 03:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We need better information and sources on bans in European countries. That's a fact-checking issue. I'd like to see people adding better references, not deleting content they don't like. --John Nagle 05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa Plant material

Removed this material to talk page.

In an investigation by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, undercover video was obtained of Kosher slaughtering practices at a major Kosher slaughterhouse run by Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa.[1] The methods used there involved clamping the animals into a box which is then inverted for slaughter, followed by partial dismemberment of the animal before it was dead. Those methods have been condemned as unnecessarily cruel by PETA and others, including Grandin and the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, but are endorsed by the Orthodox Union,[2] which supervises the slaughterhouse. An investigation by the USDA resulted in some minor operational changes. A lawsuit under Iowa law is pending. Grandin's comment was "I thought it was the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen. I couldn't believe it. I've been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before. ...
I've seen kosher slaughter really done right, so the problem here is not kosher slaughter. The problem here is a plant that is doing everything wrong they can do wrong".[3]
In 2006, the Orthodox Union, Temple Grandin, and Agriprocessors had reportedly resolved their problems.[4]

Since the quote provided indicates the AgriProcessors incident described involved procedures "never ever seen" in typical kosher processing plants and "kosher slaughter is not the problem here", the evidence indicates this content simply has nothing to do with the article topic. One might as well insert long paragraphs on the horrific conditions discovered at a particular beer plant into the article on the temperance movement. Lurid and awful things sometimes happen at beer plants, but this can occur at other plants too. And does it shed any real light on the article topic? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted large POV deletion of cited material. Will attempt to address real issues raised. --John Nagle 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs lost during deletions

I'm trying to find the references named "convention" and "inra", which seemed to have been lost during some big deletions. Would someone please find and restore them? They're in the history somewhere. Those are the ones that bring up red error messages. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, found and fixed those. No current formatting errors, I think. Please be more careful when editing. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to John Nagle:

Dates and progression of slaughter bans in Europe:

I believe I have found the definitive references for this, and I have given them above.

They are not available on the web, one is a rare book that is most probably in some libraries - there is a copy for $135 on Amazon currently.

Ronit Gurtman quoted this extensively in her Term paper for Harvard law school - the refernces read Ibid, Ibid, Ibid all the way down - and what is given are the proposals in numerous places that did not get passed as well as the ones that did.

Another reference is Beef and Politics, quoted above - this is available on the web for a fee.

If you google for this, you can obtain a quote of the introductory paragraph, with the information there - why stunning was introduced etc.

So this brings up a major issue - in many cases information - and misinformation goes bouncing around the web as rumour. One site - truth and falsehood or something that collects these rumours points out that one false report on the web was that Holland (more properly the Netherlands)banned shehitah (religious slaughter)when, in fact the truth was that a modification had been made not to slaughter older animals this way. This rumour persisted for a number of years.

As I understood it, anyone can edit anything on Google backed up by proper references when existing masterial lacks references.

The factual information that forms the basis of the article is from modiya and not referenced, but that site - as a secoöndary source does not observe academic rigour and gives no references whatsoever. It was put together by someone from memory as a class exercise in anti-Semitism and Holocaust studies, due to lack of time. RPSM 15:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"The issue is complicated by allegations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia."

I object to this on stylistic and factual grounds.

There is no point in writing "allegations" - either it was or it wasn't.

The "alleged" and "allegations" construction is used by newspaper journalists to report cases that are sub judice that are subject to court proceedings and where it is illegal to give an opinion as to someone's guilt of having done something and where the newspaper stands to lose money in a libel action.

It is also used in court, where things that happened are going to be refuted.

"x is y" is a good construction without hedging around with a lot of "it is alleged" or strings of double negatives simply to make a show of impartiality. It clutters up the text. The anti-Semitic societies that were formed in Saxony and Switzerland in the late 19th century called themselves anti-Semites and they were proud of it. It represented a campaign to preserve racial purity according to the then new science of Racial Hygiene. It had none of the derogatory tone we nowadays associate with it.

The basic idea behind Racial Hygiene was one, that there were distinct races - and this is nowadays not believed to be the case. In fact, there are specific racial characteristics - such as straight or curly hair, different types of noses, tall and short and various degrees of skin, hair and eye pigmentation in an endless combination.

The idea of a race becoming degenerate by admixture with another race and the idea of racial purity is disproven. A larger gene pool produces healthier individuals, witness bleeders - haemophiliacs in inbred Royal Houses, as well as diseases that occur more frequently in inbred populations such as Swedes and Jews - if only to a statisticlly very tiny degree.

Anti-Semites wanted to keep Jewish blood out of the genaral population.

Another false idea was that the lighter the pigmentation the better and that the most superior individuals and races were blue eyed and tall and blonde, whereas those with darker skin, hair eyes were inferior.

This extended into Christian art where Jesus is often represented as red haired by Italian painters, angels as blonde cherubs of blonde men with wings and the devil himself always had black hair.

In German expressionist plays of the late ninteenth century - the goodies were blonde, and the baddies brunette. Like cowboy films with white hats for the goodies and black hats for the baddies.

So "alleged" is bunkum - they were anti-Semites - those who wanted to reimpose restrictions, limitations and disabilities on Jews only recently lifted, and slaughtering meat was as good a restriction as any.

On the streets of Stockholm the population came out and demonstrated that the restrictions on Jews (which included that Jews could only reside in three towns: Stockholm, Gothenburg and Landskrona - as well as banning Jews selling meat to Christians - be reinstated.

Ronit Gurtman points out that this restriction on meat sales can be traced back to the late 900th century where it was first documented and gives a background.

Rather: "The issue is complicated by allegations of anti-Semitism and xenophobia." why not simply say - anti-Semitic societies in Saxony and Switzerland used Animal Protection Societies to push through legislation banning Jews from slaughtering without stunning.

This throws light on the real nature of the admixture of racism with hygiene, and any researcher can dig up what was actually said at the time.

Those who wish to keep bans in place are not keen on the history and true facts coming to light - there is a lot in Sweden swept under the carpet - such as the Swedish Secret Service (SÄPO) suggesting that they and the Swiss approach the German Nazi government to introduce legislation to stamp a letter "J" in Jewish passports so that fleeing refugees could be turned back at the border. (Reported in Expressen in 1973)

It is ridiculous to have an article on bans on ritual slaughter that does not put the political debates of the time in their context. No one was ashamed of being called an anti-Semite - they were proud of it.

In the changed political climate we cannot sanitize and censor the truth. RPSM 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To clear up some misunderstandings

Text reads:

"Within Europe, the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country. [9][10] Germany,[10] United Kingdom,[9][10] Belgium,[9][10] Italy,[10] Ireland,[9][10] Portugal.[9][10]

In some countries, animals need to be stunned right after the cut: Denmark,[9] Finland,[9] the Lower Austria province.[11] Some countries impose stunning before slaughter with no exception: Sweden,[12] [10][13][14] Norway,[10][13] Iceland,[10][13] Switzerland,[10][13][15] six of the eight provinces of Austria.[10][13]

In the Netherlands, halal slaughter includes some pre-mortem stunning.[16] Spain allows ritual slaughter for sheep and goats but not for cattle.[10]"

Please be clear about this:

Ritual slaughter, religious slaughter, shehitah, schächten, Kosher slaughter, halal slaughter applies to 1)cattle and 2)fowl (poultry).

"In some countries, animals need to be stunned right after the cut:"

What animals? cattle, poultry, or both?

For Jews, or Muslims or both? Mandatory or not?

Sweden forbids any animal to be slaughtered without stunning, but permits slaughtering without stunning for poultry if this is done for household (non-commercial) purposes. I am not sure about the situation for óther animals at present.

Regarding Finland, no Jewish slaughter is carried out at the moment, so there is some halal slaughter, and whatever legislation is in place applies to Muslims.

If you wish to list countries in Europe that permit religious slaughter, then that would be every country minus five, as I said above.

Here is the complete list according to Wikipedia:

Åland, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, The Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Gibralta, Guernsey, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jersey, Kazakstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Modova, Monaco, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbad, Turkey, Ukraine, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northerm Ireland, The Vatican City.

RPSM 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained to you the stupidity of stating - Some countries permit religious slaughter without stunning (when "some" is false and "most" is true - and then adding to the calumny (to create a false picture by reducing the list) by picking out six countries at random. This is at odds with geography.

You cannot make up facts as you go along.

And you have not justified returning nonsense to the article in the discussion.

regards,

RPSM 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for more solid references on this. Just added one for Sweden, from the US Department of Agriculture, which tracks this issue for export purposes. --John Nagle 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lower

US Department of State

Austria

International Religious Freedom Report 2005 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor


"On May 27, 2005, Parliament passed an animal protection law prohibiting the slaughtering of animals without anesthesia. For ritual slaughtering, the law permits post-cut anesthesia; in addition, the ritual slaughtering must be carried out by "specially trained" and experienced persons and take place in the presence of a veterinarian. The ruling was in force, and has been accepted by the Islamic and the Jewish communities."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm

RPSM 20:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From reference at present no 11

"In the turkey slaughterhouse, where deficiencies had previously been detected during FVO mission 1009/200, the CA had sought advice from outside consultants and had made improvements to ensure effectiveness of stunning.

However, the birds wings came into contact with the electrified water before their heads entered the waterbath, resultilng in teh birds experiencing pre-stunning shocks.

RPSM 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outdated information re: Austria.

The information regarding post-stunning above - that applies to the whole of Austria from the US Department of is most recent: post-stunning is required and has been accepted by the Jewish and Muslim communities.(2005) The table information relies on earlier information that is no longer accurate.

RPSM 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the canton of Aragon Aargau, stunning was introduced in 1855, with exemption for Jewish slaughter - but this was rescinded 10 years later.

from Robin Judd: The Politics of Beef."

RPSM 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair and dishonest

The architecture of the article is wrong.

When Professor Temple Grandin wrote about horrific conditions in one slaughterhouse that is no more, she does so to talk about what motivated her to design pens and abbatoir layouts that would reduce animal suffering.

But this is headed Criticism and in the context of what is written previous to it, purports to be criticism of the shehitah cut itself. This was not Professor Grandin's intention, and you do her a disservice by using such a large section of her material in this way.

Professor Grandin has definite views on shehitah, and these are presented on her website. Quoting her out of context, in this way is unfair and dishonest.

RPSM 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Article Name

I don't think it is appropriate to have a "criticism" section in the article as it stands. However, I also think we should merge this article with Ritual slaughter, as has been suggested. Let us see what emerges from that discussion and then we will work together to ensure that all sides of the debate are accurately represented. Itsmejudith 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Itsmejudith. If I'm interpreting the comments correctly, then three of us (you, me, John Nagle) had favored renaming this article as "Ritual slaughter" and expanding it, partly to improve neutrality. Meanwhile, though, Ritual slaughter itself has been built up from a dab page to an article encompassing several subtopics. Kudos esp to Dbachmann. Given the scope and size of Ritual slaughter, I think it would overwhelm that article to add in all the ban information. Fortunately, one subtopic is Legal aspects with a link to this page as the spinoff. Accordingly, I think the best way to handle the situation, now, would be to rename this article as Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. This would improve the neutrality aspects here, plus make it consistent with the (now) main article, Ritual slaughter. Does this make sense? Well, I think maybe it won't be too controversial, given our RfC discussion above. So I'll do this move assuming that such a move can be reverted if there's disagreement. By the way, this change in name still leaves open the option of merging the content into the main article, if so desired. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

it's not a big deal, but I thought the former title was superior: this article treats bans, not "legal aspects" in general. The point is that ritual slaughter itself is prescribed legally, viz. by religious law. This article deals with modern secular law exclusively. Perhaps it's pedantic to note this, but I don't see a reason to move away from accuracy. Perhaps "regulations of ritual slaughter" rather than the more apodictic "bans"? dab (𒁳) 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. As described above, there's a benefit in slightly expanding the scope and bringing in a more neutral, maybe broader perspective. HG | Talk 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New title is much better. RPSM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.127.255.15 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active issues

Hi. This section on EU law has been expanded (or restored?), great. The first several paragraphs deal with the relationship between ritual slaughter and religious rights/freedom. Perhaps it could be given a more substantive heading, like Ritual slaughter and religious rights (or Slaughtering rites and religious rights?!). In addition, since this sets up the basic legal status for ritual slaughter, perhaps all or part of this section should be moved up, before bans? HG | Talk 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That section will need some work. The actual EU directive, "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter" Official Journal of the European Union L 137 , 02/06/1988 p. 0027 - 0038, requires stunning before slaughter, but allows member states to opt out: Each Contracting Party may authorize derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: - slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals .... Thus, EU countries can choose to allow religious slaughter without previous stunning, but are not obligated to do so. Many EU countries do allow a religious exemption; some don't.
The cited case is grossly misrepresented. It's about a feud between two Jewish organizations in France which disagree on the definition of "kosher". The older organization had been given oversight of kosher slaughter by the French Ministry of Agriculture, and the newer one wanted to be licensed to run their own slaughterhouses. That was the religious freedom issue raised in the European Court of Human Rights - a government-supported religious monopoly. The Court ruled that there had been no violation of the Convention on Human Rights; the challengers lost. The Court didn't rule on whether there's an EU right to religious slaughter, since France didn't prohibit it. Thus the "it is not contested" phrase. --John Nagle 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, The paragraphs in indent are direct quotes from the decision. The quotes explicitly mention Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and explicitly discuss its applicability to ritual slaughter. The summary sticks very closely to the quotes. The source involved is clearly notable and significant and what it has to say is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopdia. I believe all policy criteria on the appropriateness of inclusion are met. I believe we Wikipedia editors aren't in any position to make or entertain claims about the legal signifiance of European Court of Human Rights decisions or their consistency or inconsistency with other documents. I haven't a clue myself whether what you say is true or not; I'm in no position to conduct original legal research. Maybe when the court said "ritual slaughter must be considered to be covered by a right guaranteed by the Convention" etc. etc. it really didn't mean it, but it seems to me we simply have to take what the court said at its word. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The claim "The Court first squarely held that ritual slaughter is protected by Article 9 of the Convention:" is original research, and not supported by the decision. The court decided against the complainants. --John Nagle 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! A more expanded version of the above quote is "It follows that the applicant association can rely on Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the French authorities’ refusal to approve it, since ritual slaughter must be considered to be covered by a right guaranteed by the Convention, namely the right to manifest one’s religion in observance, within the meaning of Article 9." Something that one can "rely on" would appear to be a square holding. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, I have changed "The Court squarely held that" to "The Court stated that." I believe this should address any issue. best --Shirahadasha 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a interesting decision. The Court didn't directly address the issue of whether ritual slaughter is a religious right in the EU overriding national laws, because there wasn't a conflict with French law on the subject. (Hence the "it is not contested" phrase.) If someone had brought a case regarding Sweden, which requires stunning with no religious exceptions, the Court might have had to decide that issue. --John Nagle 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a possible reading, but it's not clear to me that it's the only possible reading. It could be argued that this wasn't merely a conflict between an "old" an a "new" organization as you suggest, because the organizations had different two sets of religious standards. The applicant argued that its "Glatt" standards were stricter and France was inhibiting the religous freedom of people who adhered to them. The issue is a bit complicated because there's no difference between the underlying methods of slaughter, only in details in what's acceptable or not. But it doesn't strike me that one has to interpret the decision in a way that makes the religion issue irrelevant. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm

I gave this link from US government a few posts upwards: It is from 2005, and says that in the whole of Austria, post-stunning is approved for ritual slaughter. Therefore, in the list, Austria should be moved to that category. RPSM 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Several provinces funded offices that provided information on sects and cults. The website of the Family Office of the Government of Lower Austria no longer included a presentation that negatively characterized many religious groups. On May 27, 2005, Parliament passed an animal protection law prohibiting the slaughtering of animals without anesthesia. For ritual slaughtering, the law permits post-cut anesthesia; in addition, the ritual slaughtering must be carried out by "specially trained" and experienced persons and take place in the presence of a veterinarian. The ruling was in force, and has been accepted by the Islamic and the Jewish communities." (paragraph is about half-way down the page)

This info is from 2005 and changes the situation at federal level.(The info on the list is from 2002 - six provinces ban) Can someone change this please, as I have not learnt how to fix references. Thank you. RPSM 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] correction

"Thus, EU countries can choose to allow religious slaughter without previous stunning, but are not obligated to do so. Many EU countries do allow a religious exemption; some don't." With respect, the second sentence in John Nagle's statement above is incorrect: It should read: "Every country in the EU except Sweden makes an exemption for religious slaughter."Neither Norway or Switzerland is in the European Union, and Austria passed an exemption that applies to the whole of the country in 1995, mentioned above. The president of the Stockholm Jewish Community went on television - in a programme that covered religious slaughter and said that Sweden is the only country in the European Union that does not allow Jews to slaughter meat (Halal meat in Sweden is pre-stunned, and is not acceptable to all Muslims). She also mentioned that there is an EU directive that says that religious slaughter should be permitted. I have read this in a hard copy of the Maastricht Treaty. I do not know whether this treaty was ratified. I believe so. The directive that each EU country can decide for itself can be outdated. I think it is. This needs checking. I doubt that the information given on tv from this source would be incorrect. RPSM 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote John Nagle was referring to, I believe: "Under Directive 93/119/EEC Member States retain the right to authorise religious slaughter without prestunning in their own territory. The Directive leaves the responsibility for the respect of religious slaughtering rules with the religious authority, but places the responsibility for the enforcement of its general legal requirements directive with the official veterinary authorities." http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/legislation_en.htm This refers to the EEC (The European Economic Community). This was no more when the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 was signed, and the countries in the defunct EEC became the EU - the European Union. What applied in the EEC was revised with a directive in the Maastricht Treaty to permit religious slaughter, and Sweden is the only country not complying with this. You have to distinguish between the countries of Europe, and the EU - they are not the same. Norway and Switzerland held referenda, and voted to remain outside. RPSM 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! An express provision in the Maastricht Treaty to protect ritual slaughter would definitely be notable and worth mentioning in this article. I don't have the time to give the additional issues raised (e.g. Austria passing a blanket exemption for ritual slaughter) the attention they deserve but plan to get back to this article in a week or so. In the meanwhile, I would welcome follow-up on this information. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The actual text in the the Maastricht Treaty is (DECLARATION on the protection of animals) "The Conference calls upon the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, as well as the Member States, when drafting and implementing Community legislation on the common agricultural policy, transport, the internal market and research, to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals." [5]. An amendment added in the "Amsterdam Treaty" says that "In formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, the Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage." [6] This is the provision that allows, but does not require, EU member states to allow religious slaughter. There's a collection of all EU provisions on this subject on the EU's Animal Health and Welfare site.[7]. There's a revision underway of the "slaughter directive", but it's in the direction of tightening up the requirements for humane slaughter. The 2004 study by the European Food Safety Authority says "Stunning before slaughter is a statutory requirement in the EU (with exceptions in some Member States for religious slaughter) to induce unconsciousness and insensibility (inability to perceive stimuli) in animals, so that slaughter can be performed without avoidable fear, anxiety, pain, suffering and distress."[8] That study ignores religious slaughter, except that the references include a link to Temple Grandin's article on the subject in Meat Focus International. --John Nagle 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll point out that the provision regarding "giving full regard to...humane slaughter" and "respecting...religious rites" the treaty could be interpreted as both (a) treating the two as incompatible and (b) mandating the the first and only grudgingly accepting the second (or otherwise prefering the first to the second), but then again, maybe it could be interpreted differently. Each side of the debate comes to this type of arguably ambiguous wording with its own gloss and the treaty may ultimately be interpreted by authorities and courts differently still. It's safest to set out what the treaty says, what major court decisions interpreting it say, and what reliable sources such as law review articles and notable legal scholars say. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper article 29 Novermber 2005 mentions EU directive

"Sweden is the only EU country today where slaughter according to the rules of kashrut and halal is legally prohibited." "In a joint statement on this report, the Central Council for Jews in Sweden, the Muslim Council of Sweden and the Brotherhood Movement (a Christian Social Democratic organisation), wrote that “the current laws of slaughter is in opposition to the European Convention for Human Rights, which since 1995 also is Swedish law that protects freedom of religion”. "The statement recommends that “an exception concerning religious slaughter according to the EU directive and the European Convention should be incorporated into the law of animal welfare”. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3176717,00.html RPSM 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing" ... "Whereas, however, it is necessary to allow for technical and scientific experiments to be carried out and to take account of the particular requirements of certain religious rites;" ... "1. Solipeds, ruminants, pigs, rabbits and poultry brought into slaughterhouses for slaughter shall be: (a) moved and if necessary lairaged in accordance with the provisions of Annex A; (b) restrained in accordance with the provisions of Annex B; (c) stunned before slaughter or killed instantaneously in accordance with the provisions of Annex C; (d) bled in accordance with the provisions of Annex D. 2. In the case of animals subject to particular methods of slaughter required by certain religious rites, the requirements of paragraph 1(c) shall not apply." ... "Directive 74/577/EEC shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 1995."

The above quoted from the directive are in sequence, except the following: "Whereas in so doing Community action must comply with the requirements arising out of the principle of subsidiarity laid down in Article 3b of the Treaty;" ... The principle of subsidiarity was borrowed from the Catholic Church, and means that a decision is to be taken at the lowest possible level. The full text is at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/slaughter/93-119-ec_en.pdf RPSM 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU directive

Article is not in the English version, but is in Swedish wiki: EU-direktiv Wikipedia

EU-direktiv är ett direktiv i EU som binder en medlemsstat till att införa direktivets mål inom en viss tidsfrist utan att ge detaljer på hur resultatet ska uppnås. Ett EU-direktiv är inte direkt gällande i Sverige såsom en vanlig lag stiftad av den Svenska riksdagen. EU-direktivet innebär endast en förpliktelse för den svenska staten att genom lagstiftning eller på annat sätt se till att direktivets mål uppnås. Om Sverige redan uppfyller de krav som ställs i direktiv så behöver inga åtgärder vidtas. I annat fall måste åtgärder vidtas inom en bestämd tid.

My translation (of course for English wiki this needs to be rephrased to apply to any member state - not specifically Sweden. Odd things in the translation are in the original.)

An EU directive is a directive in the EU which binds a member state to introduce the aims of the directive within a certain period of time without going into details of in what manner this result is to be achieved. An EU directive is not directly in force in Sweden as is a law enacted by the Swedish Riksdag. An EU directive only implies a duty for the Swedish state by legislation, or other means to see that the aims of the directive are achieved. If Sweden already fulfils the provisions which are made in a directive, then no measures need be taken. Otherwise measures must be taken within a specified time. RPSM 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from Swedish Jews, Muslims and Social Democratic Christians addressed to the Swedish Department of Agriculture

Till Jordbruksdepartementet 103 33 Stockholm 30 september 2005 Yttrande över Djurskyddsmyndighetens redovisning av regeringsuppdrag om religiös slakt från Judiska Centralrådet, Sveriges Muslimska Råd och Broderskapsrörelsen

The above is addressed the Swedish Ministry of Agriculture from three bodies: the Jewish Central Committee, Swedish Muslim Council and the Brotherhood Movement (a body of Christian Social Democrats) A statement in response to the Authority for Animal Protection's report regarding the task of the Government concerning religious slaughter from the Jewish Central Committee, Sweden's Muslim Advisory Board and the Brotherhood Movement ( a movement of Christians in the Social Democratic Worker's Party.) - att en undantagsparagraf om religiös slakt i enlighet med EU-direktivet och Europakonventionen skall infogas i Djurskyddslagens paragrafer. Undantagsparagrafen kan utformas i likhet med den som gäller för fjäderfä och kaniner. Regeringen ges därmed rätt att närmare precisera regler och villkor för religiös slakt. - that a exclusion Section on religious slaughter in accordance with the EU-directive and the European Convention [This is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed among others, by Sweden in 1950 in Rome, and which is now incorporated into Swedish Law] - can be drawn up similar to the one that applies to poultry and rabbits. Thereby the Government will be accorded the right to specify exact rules and provisions for religious slaughter. [Words in square brackets my comment.] RPSM 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the Jewish Community representative in Sweden has said on television that if nothing is done, there remains the possiblity of suing Sweden in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - the Court set up for the purpose of upholding the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

I am not sure if I will have time to translate the whole document. It refers to practice and legislation in New Zeeland - basically, that there appears to be anomolies and inconsistencies in legislation. Rite" in the Swedish translation of the Directive has been translated as "ceremony". And the statement says that it was unfortunate that the word "ceremony" was inserted as no ceremony whatsoever takes place. RPSM 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh ritual slaugher/religious slaughter

I read on the web that the UK government permits Sikh ritual slaughter, when it is performed by a guillotine. The Sikhs cut decapitate the animal with a sword. RPSM 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) RPSM 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is the old EEC directive that is no longer in force. Article 4 is the relevant item.

(...deleted long quote of EU directive which is available via a link, per complaints about excessive quotes...) --John Nagle 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=1974&nu_doc=577 RPSM 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

Have deleted own contributions, will delete more later as suggested, leaving factual material to the point. RPSM 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to mess up the formatting of the page again when you do it. I had one hell of a time fixing it. Actually, it's usually considered better to archive old posts than delete them. Leave a note here saying what you want archived, and I'll do it for you. --Steven J. Anderson 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


On further consideration, RPSM, since there are several sections of this talk page that consist of a single post by you made within the last one or two days that has elicited no responses, if you want to delete them entirely, that may be better all around. However, please remember that if you delete a post that has elicited a response, it becomes nearly impossible to follow the discussion. Also remember that the purpose of the talk page is for editors to discuss ways to improve the article. And lastly, it may benefit you to consider that the longer a post is, and the less obviously it describes ways to improve the article the less likely it is that anyone will read it. This talk page has grown enormously in just the last week or so and the discussion is very difficult to follow. --Steven J. Anderson 13:08, 30 October 2007

(UTC)


IRPSM, I'd encourage directly adding information on additional legal materials and notable comments to the article rather than bringing them here. Be sure to cite your sources. We can help clean up the citations afterwards if you don't know how to put them into standard format. I'd suggest a very abbreviated approach -- short synopses and brief quotes. Also, foreign-language material is problematic given that translations can be interpretive, so I'd suggest starting with material that's in English or which has official or well-accepted English translations. As long as you don't delete other people's material in the process, directly adding should be fine and we can discuss any problems. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dates wrong, two legal systems clash, but neither is prohibited or restricted.

"Notably, bans on ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the late 1890s onward, resulting in the prohibition or restriction of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious law." I am not happy with this. Robin Judd (Beef and Politics) gives 1865 as the first date. The second point, is that yes, there are two legislative systems, but I would quibble that Jewish law or Muslim law are changed by bans. The bans present Jews and Muslims with choices - to go hungry, to (unwillingly) abstain from meat and poultry other citizens eat without restraint, to break a long-kept family tradition and eat illegal meat (treif, haram), to move to another country - and, for those intending to embark on a religious observant life - to affect this decision beacause of the cost, health reasons etc. Robin Judd has a nearly identical section with a similar conclusion. The Stockholm appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture mentions the prohibitive price of kosher meat in Sweden (Switzerland has land borders with Italy, France and Germany - Sweden's situation is unique in the EU and Norway is in a similar position. I do not believe there is a ban in any other country and that the list given in the article is misleading.) Non-Jews and non-Muslims (some Christians, atheists, agnostics, Humanists) are blissfully unaware of the significance of diet in religious life (some Christians quote Jesus as saying tht it is more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in, and conclude that Jesus was against the food rules (Swedish Radio program Människor och tro (People and Faith) This cannot be put in a Jewish context, whereas other words attributed to Jesus read like Mishna commentary. Hindus, however, revolted against the British when it was put about that the fat in rifle cartridges they had to bite off was from beef or pork. RPSM 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU activities in the religious slaughter area

This is a major subject in the European Union. Some significant items:

  • DIAREL, "Encouraging Dialog on Issues of Religious Slaughter", [9], is an sizable, EU-funded multi-university effort to study the subject. They're still in the data-gathering phase. Eventually there will be materials there suitable for citation, but not yet.
  • One of the issues raised in Britain is whether meat from religiously slaughtered animals should be labeled as such for sale, even when not kosher or halal. "Much of the meat from animals slaughtered by religious methods is not sold as such, because it comes from the wrong cut of meat." [10]
  • The Guardian reports that most halal meat is in fact from animals stunned before slaughter. "Muslim groups and religious leaders are furiously defending their right to kill an animal without stunning it first. But what none has publicised is the fact that virtually all British halal meat is in fact stunned before it is slaughtered." [11] --John Nagle 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If the current article title, Legal aspects of ritual slaughter, is intended to stick, the article should focus primarily on statutes, treaties, and court decisions and the views of judges, law professors, and legislators. News and advocacy on the general issue of ritual slaughter has at best secondary relevance. For this reason, none of these thress accounts strikes me as having anything except passing relevance to the issue of legal aspects of ritual slaughter. This is after all an encyclopedia article on the law, not an advocacy blog or forum for posting the latest news. Perhaps a subsection of Ritual slaughter could be started on e.g. social aspects of ritual slaughter or ritual slaughter advocacy. Astounding never-publicized-before facts, and articles that present such as such, tend to be poor candidates for inclusion in an encyclopdia article. We want a broad view of main issues over decades, not every detail of the latest developmments this week. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I reviewed the Guardian article. The article reports claims by a small number of individuals that a number of halal certifying organizations in Europe are fraudulent and that a large amount of meat passed off as halal is not in fact halal by any reasonable definition. I believe WP:BLP applies to claims of this nature and multiple independent sources and other enhanced reliablility standards are required to include in Wikipedia, even assuming it is relevant to this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that BLP does not apply at all if we do not mention any names from the Observer (the Sunday sister paper of the Guardian) article in WP. This is a good piece of investigative journalism from a reputable paper. It raises many substantive issues that are relevant, if not to this article then to the Ritual slaughter article. It just needs careful handling with wording such as "a newspaper report suggested...". These are not really extraordinary claims, just claims that food standards enforcement may fall down in the UK, particularly in an area that is thought to concern only a minority of consumers. That isn't shattering news, actually. Itsmejudith 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The kashrut article discusses laws regarding kosher-certification fraud and notes that several American courts have struck such laws down on the ground that, at least as formulated, they represent an establishment of religion. See e.g. [12]. For this reason, kosher-certification establishments in the United States have generally relied trademark law, which empowers them to ensure their certification stamps are not used without permission. If these organizations themselves failed to enforce religious standards, it would not necessarily be illegal as a matter of secular law in the United States. Nonetheless such claims involve people's reputations and and livelihoods. Perhaps the Halal article might be a good place for this information. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jews, who have lived in Europe for two thousand years, have built up an organised system of inspection controlled by rabinnical courts (Bathey Din [pl] sing: Beth Din) as well as a standard labelling system, where violations are punishable by the loss of a licence. Muslims have only recently started to live in Christian countries, and have no established system that rests on a legal basis in this way. Jewish authorities in the UK have been helping Muslims regarding advice on the structure of how this functions, as on a broad perspective Islam and Judaism run parallel in their legal structures (in Morocco, where Jews had to comply with Muslim law, there were comments and discussions from Jewish Rabbis that then became incorporated into Muslim shariya law: a two-way legal interchange. [article The Jewish Encyclopaedia 1911]. I know what follows is not directly relevant to the main discussion here, but it follows on from what I mentioned above. Christians have an entirely different starting point - the Eucharist ceremony - Holy Communion - which is a kind of ritualised human sacrifice followed by blood drinking (whether the blood is real of not has been the subject of the transubstantiation debate (and wars) within the Church, and the ceremony is, in the words of the church, "a mystery" which it is impossible to subject to rational analysis and open debate. This is why those coming from a Christian background have to be disabused of certain assumptions concerning shehitah, which, if not mentioned, will be assumed. This point is comes up in a footnote at the end of Beef and Politics by Robin Judd, where a Christian priest says that Christians are by their nature obsessed with blood, and eat blood in sausages and other preparations. An EU project consisting practically entirely of veterinarians will add very little to the discussion. They will not focus on banning fishing for sport (and not food) where fish caught are thrown back into the water, or whether it is correct to boil shellfish alive, to hunt moose/elk for pleasure and to compare that poultry in "standard industrial practice" are routinely hung upside down before being electrocuted in a water bath, whereas religious slaughter must be done manually: inverting cattle (which Jews did) is regarded as cruel, and banned, but not inverting poultry. These questions seem to lie in the area of Morals and Medical and Veterinary Ethics rather than Veterinary Science. In light of the fact that first Jews and now Muslims are banned from slaughtering and processing meat and poultry products in some places in Europe but not others - and nowhere outside Europe at all - to me the answer seems to lie somewhere in proximity to the answer to a question that a friend with a Buddhist background from the Chinese mainland who had married into a Chinese Pentacostal family put to me: - Why are Jews hated so much? This was new to her, and I was not able to give a brief answer. As English is now an international language, encylopaedia readers will not necessarily have a European cultural background with all the unstated assumptions this entails (including European/Christian anti-Semitism) This is related to a writing exercise we once had at school: describe a piece of paper and a piece of string to someone who comes from the moon, and does not know what they are. We forget our unstated assumptions. All this by way of wondering: What are the main issues? RPSM 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)RPSM 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place for long, unsourced rants.

[edit] Response to long, unsourced rant accusation

The question of inspection and labelling mashgihut and herkhshes respectively is well-known to orthodox Jews and needs no source. This is part of kashruth that could be inserted into the article. The two-way interchange between Jewish and Muslim law in Morocco is sourced and relevant. The Eucharist as a starting point for some anti-Jewish themes is mentioned in Robert Wistricht: Antisemitism, the Longest Hatred. (He also mentions Germanic myths that persist in popular culture that combine with this - the half dead, vampires, in childrens' stories and the Gothic novel horror movies) A priest picks up on this theme, quoted in a footnote to Beef and Politics. Read the footnote to understand the inference. Vetenarians are either for or against permitting shehitah, they are not unanimous, there is no consensus. (in Religös slakt - an essay mentioned in a footnote to the Italian government paper.) The footnotes to the wiki article contain much Anthropological and Ethnographic material that is not in the article at all. This would answer my Chinese friend's question that I included to try and illuminate that non-Europeans have trouble comprehending some cultural codes that many Europeans take for granted. There are special "code books" for getting inside eg Chinese and Japanese cultures. Antisemitism is mainly a European phenomenon and difficult to explain. Non-Europeans reading Wikipedia do not have the same set of assumptions Native Europeans do. Knowledge cannot be assumed when it is not Politically Correct to discuss it. They will never get it unless you spell it out. There is enough serious literature to show that Antisemitism is not just peripheral or incidental to the shächten debates. See: Michael Metcalf, "Regulating Animal Slaughter: Animal Protection and Antisemitism in Scandinavia, 1880-1941," RPSM 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing effort within the EU to improve techniques for humane slaughter. They do, in fact, address proper stunning techniques for chickens.[13] Hunting for sport is a separate issue, but Britain banned fox hunting in the Hunting Act of 2004 [14]. (That was a major national controversy and ended a long-standing practice.) So there's a significant trend towards tighter restrictions on killing of animals independent of religious issues.

There are restrictions on ritual slaughter outside Europe. New Zealand requires stunning before killing. [15] New Zealand seems to have developed methods that satisfy both humanitarian and religious requirements, and their beef industry has sizable exports to the Arab world.[16]Austrialia has some restrictions, and I'm looking for a reliable source on those.
The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe takes the position that "FVE is of the opinion that the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances". [17]--John Nagle 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, granted. I am looking for a narrative through the article that makes sense and reflects the accounts given in the references and footnotes. I won't argue them here, I will try to summarize and fix that. RPSM 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) My explanation of the Jewish and Muslim state of the art regarding inspection and labelling could be part of the article. A mashgiah is a food inspector, and a herkhshe is a recognized mark or seal that is always traceable to a particular rabbi or authority. This is part of the practical implementation of Jewish law as it has developed (halakhah).

[edit] earliest date of bans in the eight hundreds

bans on ritual slaughter are surely not unrelated to bans on Jews selling meat to Christians, and Judd quotes a date before 900 for this. At the Third Lateran Council, church authorities banned Christians from eating at Jewish tables to get back at Jews who could not eat at Christian tables as it was not kosher - also a food ban. RPSM 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place for long, unsourced rants. I agree. All my points are serious ones. What is relevant here is: what should go into the article? What should the title of the article be? I suggest: The schächten debates, their background and history, and the debates and legislation today. Serious academic work already exists on this. Surely a sensible method would be: 1) read the academic literature 2)structure an article based on that that honestly reflects the relevant content 3)stop censoring information that is highly relevant that does not coincide with your POV - eg Grandin's and Kilgours professional opinion I quoted and was deleted. The fact that Hitler and the Axis powers introduced shehitah bans in the whole of Europe that they controlled and the Allied Powers anulled these bans. Whether or not anti-Semitism has anything to do with it, and if so, how? in what way? Creating lists of bans and current legislation without answering these questions in the article does not provide information that is readily comprehensible, or even interesting, Best. RPSM 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic bans title is not historic - it refers to bans in force now

Switzerland, Norway and Sweden are mentioned under the title == == Historic bans ==, but these are modern bans! and the countries banned under Hitler are omitted. RPSM 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct chronology of bans on Jewish slaughter

Schweiz förbjöd skäktning redan 1893, Norge följde efter 1930, Tyskland i och med nazisternas maktövertagande 1933 och Sverige alltså 1937. I alla områden som var underkuvade av nazisterna under andra världskriget var skäktning förbjuden. Förbudet hävdes efter krigsslutet i alla länder utom Norge, Schweiz och Sverige. Även Island har i dag ett generellt förbud mot skäktning.

In Switzerland shehitah was forbidden as early as 1893, Norway followed in 1930, Germany, with the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 and Sweden in 1937. In all the areas which were subjugated by the Nazis during the Second World War shehitah was banned. The ban was lifted at the end of the war in every single country except Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. Today, Iceland also has a general ban on religious slaughter.

This is from a motion made on 3 October 2005 in the Swedish Riksdag by Martin Andreasson (fp) (Folkpartiet: Swedish Liberal Party) giving the chronology of modern bans on Jewish slaughter.

Martin Anreasson reproduces his motion on his homepage http://www.martinandreasson.nu/news.asp?ID=287 RPSM 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I have translated his entire motion as it is relevant also as source material. It is at talk page for article on Ritual slaughter RPSM 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved Norway and Iceland to new country paragraphs. Fixed ref in Nazi section broken by anon. (Please, preview when making deletions, and fix the references; this is at least the fourth time an editor has broken a reference in this article. If you see a big red warning message in the references section, your edit didn't work.) Put in forward ref to Nazi section to avoid duplication. --John Nagle 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh slaughter (Jhakta)

Manual for the slaughter of small ruminants in developing countries (d) Sikh Slaughter (Jhakta)

Although it is the least applied globally of the major religious slaughters, Jhakta is of interest as it represents an extreme departure from known practices. The method is practised mainly under Sikhism, a religious creed which is an offshoot of Hinduism centred in the Punjab, India. Some other Hindu communities also practise it. In all, Jhakta adherents throughout the world do not exceed 10 million. The main feature of the method is that it is an instant decapitation process limited only to sheep and goats. (Cattle are regarded as sacred by Sikhs and Hindus and are therefore not eaten.) In the exercise of Jhakta, the head of the animal is held securely or fastened to a rigid pole or object, and with the hindlegs stretched by hand on the other side, the head is chopped off with a heavy sharp cutlass in a single stroke. After this, the animal body is dressed for use. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6552E/X6552E06.htm RPSM 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Since the 19th Century, ritual slaughter has been challenged in Christian countries intermittently. Notably, bans on ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the late 1890s onward, resulting in the prohibition or restriction of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious law."

This is not altogether true. The secular law cannot prohibit Jewish law. It does not prohibit Jewish law. Jewish law, in any case is flexible to a certain extent and adapts to modern circumstances, and to particular individual cases all the time. On the other hand, because a secular govenment insists on stunning, then a Jewish court (Beth Din) or a Jewish legal authority (poskin) can make an individual interpretation for an individual case, and this is routine. What is more important is the effect on the individual, who is not able to put food on the table, - an elderly man who is not used to eating vegetarian, and is forced to do so. The Dalai Lama tried to be vegetarian, but, he said his health was affected and he eats meat: Why should a frail Jew be restricted in this way in order to appease vegans? In Beef and Politics it is exactly this point that opens the argument. That banning Jews from eating the kind of food everyone else eats forces them to make choices between illegal food, to leave the country, to break the religious Torah laws, or to be vegetarian. Law is not only what is written in books: it is also how people are affected in their daily lives. It is important that the dillema that those affected by legislation from the Nazi period of the 1930s when Sweden was controlled by Germany through political influence appear in the article, as this is mentioned in the major modern academic works on the subject.RPSM 11:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal bans affect Jews imposing disabilities on Jews who cannot eat the same kind of food as others.

"Since the 19th Century, ritual slaughter has been challenged in Christian countries intermittently. Notably, bans on ritual slaughter have been proposed or enacted in a number of European countries, from the late 1890s onward, resulting in the prohibition or restriction of traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic) religious law."

This is not altogether true. The secular law cannot prohibit Jewish law. It does not prohibit Jewish law. Jewish law, in any case is flexible to a certain extent and adapts to modern circumstances, and to particular individual cases all the time. On the other hand, because a secular govenment insists on stunning, then a Jewish court (Beth Din) or a Jewish legal authority (poskin) can make an individual interpretation for an individual case, and this is routine. What is more important is the effect on the individual, who is not able to put food on the table, - an elderly man who is not used to eating vegetarian, and is forced to do so. The Dalai Lama tried to be vegetarian, but, he said, his health was affected and he eats meat: Why should a frail Jew be restricted in this way in order to appease vegans? In Beef and Politics it is exactly this point that opens the argument. That banning Jews from eating the kind of food everyone else eats forces them to make choices between illegal food, to leave the country, to break the religious Torah laws, or to be vegetarian. Law is not only what is written in books: it is also how people are affected in their daily lives. It is important that the dilemma that those affected by legislation enacted during the Nazi period of the 1930s when Sweden was controlled by Germany through political influence appear in the article, as this is mentioned in the major modern academic works on the subject. Jews have been subject to bans, restrictions and disabilities throughout most of their history. While these types of restrictions have been lifted for most other groups (serfs tied to the land, etc.), in some countries the bans still remain for the same reasons - that it offends the "host" population. (Although Jews have been resident in Sweden say since the 1700s. As this contradicts legislation (the European Convention of Human Rights) and is possibly going to come up in the Court in Strasbourg, it is important enough to give the true picture. I propose, therefore an addition to the article pointing this out.RPSM 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in the Economist this week

This week's Economist (magazine) has A dissertation on Romanian pork. Romania joined the European Union early this year. The Romanian tradition of killing a pig for Christmas has run into the EU regulations requiring stunning before killing. There's a dispute over whether this is a "religious" or "traditional" event. --John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shehitah in wikipedia - other languages

I am looking at the entry for shehitah in French and in Swedish. I note that the French entry is short, is written by Jews: i.e. the aim being to explain briefly the essentials and has no anti-Jewish slant. The Swedish entry is composed of both Jewish and anti-Semitic contributions (e.g. - that Jews and Muslims participate in some ceremonial rites after the animal is slaughtered (which is not true). No doubt this derives from the translation error I pointed out by EU translators. (where rite (from ritual slaughter becomes ceremony) Why not follow the French pattern and have everthing that can be included under Shehitah in that article?

The Swedish article refers to the Grandin material as a source that deals with cruelty in shehitah. In a country like Sweden, where there is opposition to religious slaughter, to religious denominational schools, and to circumcision - and these come up in political debate, we have the "host" population involving themselves at a basic level in things they do not understand - that they do not possess a basic vocabulary and terminology to deal with it - and - what is worse things about which they have private fantasies and harbour folkloric rumours and calumnies [calumny - a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something]. A source like wikipedia should put them right - not lead them astray.

Newspapers hit on these items rather than dry fact (eg the FAWC report was not about shehitah - it was about presenting reforms that will directly improve Animal Welfare big time - eg by backpedaling from large scale operations to small scale operations situated near the places where the animals have lived obviating large slaughterhouses and long transport stretches. Instead of writing one single word about this, the spate of newspaper stories at the time focused on the threat of banning Jewish slaughter (as one animal rights activist pointed out above) The FAWC is not a repository of expertise on shehitah - it consists of rural beef and pig farmers, and knowlegeable experts contribute to government decisions who can point to Grandin's and Kilgour's expert conclusions (that where stunning is not properly done shehita is definitely preferable) (Grandin's observation that when the most skilful shohtim operate unconsciousness is achieved in 5 seconds: the Swedish article gives a 30 second minimum.) Why not give both sides of the argument instead of selectively quoting sources?

In every country where shehitah is banned, there is a strong movement that is anti-Jewish that keeps alive these calumnies. The wikipedia articles reflect the state of political debate in these respective countries. Also the "debate" - i.e. the "host" population's position on shehitah from the 1850s onwards - is the main focus of the literature (Religious slaughter, Beef and Politics) from an anthropological POV where a "host" population places restrictions on minorities. If sources are used, the main arguments in these sources ought not to be overlooked or omitted.

Jewish law (and Muslim law) contain a strong element of supervision that to a large extent obviates the fuction of Health and Safety officers and this is recognised in the dispensations granted. (Minimising suffering is an important fuction of shehitah). These relevant points above should appear in a balanced article. Even Grandin has a note referring to the nature of the debate (political rather than strictly scientific)

I do not like the techique of "topical" organisation where my contributions get erased and reappear in tabular form. This results in in a mini-encyclopedia of the subject where the main arguments in the sources do not appear. Regards RPSM (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal aspects of ritual slaughter include the regulation of slaughterhouses, butchers, and religious personnnel involved with traditional shechita (Jewish), dhabiĥa (Islamic) and Jhatka (Sikh) religious slaughter. Regulations also may extend to butchery products sold in accordance with kashrut and halal religious law.

They are not simply sold in accordance with kashruth and halal religious law, they are slaughtered in accordance with halakha and sharia respectively. Although Sikh slalughter - Jhatka is in accordance with the Sikh religion, Sikhs make a point of not having any religious ceremony (so as not to offend other Muslims or Hindus who were the people who converted to Shikhism). How can this be called ritual slaughter, when the whole point is to avoid any ritual? It must be religious slaughter, as it is a part of the Sikh religion. In the same way, Jewish slaughter makes a point of pouring the blood on the ground and covering it with earth to show the blood is not for consumption or for any ceremony. RPSM (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pascal Krauthammer. Das schächtverbot in der Schweiz. First two paragraphs of abstract.

The Banning of Ritual Slaughter in Switzerland from 1845 to 2000

Ritual slaughter as a question of protection of animals, politics and xenophobia

In the middle of the 19th Century, the slow-moving process of Jewish emancipation was beginning to show first signs of meaningful progress and it seemed as if equality would be achieved in the foreseeable future. Exactly at this point in time, legislators in the cantons of Aargau and St. Gallen imposed a ban on Jewish ritual slaughter. The legislators were of the opinion that the ritual slaughter, whereby the animal’s throat is slit without anaesthetic (stunning) was an act of cruelty to animals. The respected veterinarians however, whose help was called upon to at as referees in the matter, did not share this point of view. As a result, all regulations (bans) were lifted. When the Grand Council in Aargau wanted to forbid the ritual (slaughter) once again in 1887, members of the Jewish community in Aargau sent a petition to the Swiss Federal Council. The Jews asserted that ritual slaughter was not an act of cruelty to animals and therefore was not immoral and such a ban would be a violation of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Action on the initiative of Edmund von Steiger, the responsible head of department, the government in Bern passed a ban on ritual slaughter. As a result the Israeli (Jewish) religious associations in Bern joined the Jews in Aargau in their efforts. After far-reaching clarifications, the Swiss Federal Council declared the petition of the Jews as justified. An appeal from the cantons of Aargau and Bern against the decree of the Swiss Federal Council was rejected by the Federal Assembly.

Andreas Keller-Jäggi, vice-president of the governing body of the Swiss-German Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), resolutely wanted to achieve a ban on ritual slaughter and thus started the first national petition for a referendum in Switzerland. A ban on slaughter without anaesthetic (stunning) was to be included as article 25bis of the Federal Constitution. Keller-Jäggi gathered an impressive number of signatures and the voting was scheduled for the 20th of August, 1893. In order to convince the population that it was absolutely necessary to ban ritual slaughter, the animal conservationists started an extensive media campaign. They based their campaign on the anti-vivisection movement of a few years previous and defamed the experts, who maintained that ritual slaughter was not cruel to animals, as cold-blooded tormentors of animals. As they did not have any acknowledged veterinary experts, they either presented pro-ritual experts as putative contra-ritual experts or just invented referees’ reports. They furthermore built up the necessity of an anaesthetic (stunning) as a question of humanitarianism and of civilisation. The blatant anti-Semitic components were a central element of the campaign against ritual slaughter. The leaflets, talks, newspapers and letters to editors on the subject of ritual slaughter were full of anti-Semitic prejudices and clichés. They not only exploited the ritual murder legend by making various insinuations, but also used the Jews as a way of explaining the unfavourable economic climate of the time. Furthermore, they used the Eastern European Jews as an object by which to create anti-Semitic feelings. After all, the idea of the Jewish world conspiracy was present in the campaigning against ritual slaughter. Along with Keller-Jäggi, who was a representative of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals it was Ulrich Durrenmatt, editor of the influential newspaper Berner Vokszeitung who was the driving force behind the anti-Semitic movement. (p 269)

...

In the 20’s and 30’s the modern racist anti-Semitism and especially the National Socialist movement put a new dimension on the question of ritual slaughter. The National Socialist propagandists made the connection between the protection of animals an the question of race: the Aryan was seen as an animal-loving vehicle of culture, whereas the Jews who supported ritual slaughter were defamed as an inferior race. The ban on ritual slaughter in the whole Reich, passed on the 21st April 1933, was a symbolic part of the politics at the time, leading to the deprivation of rights and dehumanisation of Jews. With the appearance of frontism, the Swiss opponents of ritual slaughter formed an alliance with anti-Semitic groups. The Animal Lover, the Swiss-German SPCA’s journal, adopted a Nazi-friendly attitude over several years. (sid 271-272) RPSM (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Finland "Citing animal cruelty, Finland recently joined Sweden and Spain in passing a modern law which bans ritual slaughter."[28]

Reference is to Vegans organisation. Information is not true.

Finland's law dates from the 1930s and allows simultaneous stunning or post-stunning. Reference Josia Berman: Shehitah as well as personal enquiry to the Finnish Jewish community. Halal slaughter is practised in Finland, but no Jewish slaughter due to lack of demand and resources. RPSM (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving section with opinions criticizing ritual slaughter to talk page

I moved the section below to the talk page. The reason is it doesn't appear to have anything to with the article's subject, legal aspects of ritual slaughter. It consists of criticism of ritual slaughter by individuals who aren't lawyers and don't seem to be saying anything about its legal aspects. It would certainly be relevant to give the arguments of the supporters of a particular law or legal approach, but this section appears to be completely outside any legal context. This is an article on legal aspects of ritual slaughter, so an editorial-style compilation of arguments as to why it should be banned based on anecdotes about an experience in a single slaughterhouse is out of order here. Some countries have banned it, and their reasons for having done so would be relevant, but there isn't a single argument or source here that actually comes from a legal source or independent analysis of a country that actually banned it and explaining why the ban was enacted. All of these arguments come not from legal sources but the opinions of advocates in countries (the U.S. and the U.K.) which haven't banned it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This material might better belong in the Ritual slaughter article, which presents the general subject, so general opinions on whether it's a good or a bad thing would be more appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Temple Grandin, a leading designer of animal handling systems, wrote, on visiting a Kosher slaughterhouse, "I will never forget having nightmares after visiting the now defunct Spencer Foods plant in Spencer, Iowa fifteen years ago. Employees wearing football helmets attached a nose tong to the nose of a writhing beast suspended by a chain wrapped around one back leg. Each terrified animal was forced with an electric prod to run into a small stall which had a slick floor on a forty-five degree angle. This caused the animal to slip and fall so that workers could attach the chain to its rear leg [in order to raise it into the air]. As I watched this nightmare, I thought, 'This should not be happening in a civilized society.' In my diary I wrote, 'If hell exists, I am in it.' I vowed that I would replace the plant from hell with a kinder and gentler system."[5] However, Dr Grandin has said that "When the cut is done correctly, the animal appears not to feel it. From an animal welfare standpoint, the major concern during ritual slaughter are the stressful and cruel methods of restraint (holding) that are used in some plants."[6]

The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council says that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and it should be banned immediately. According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[7][8] The UK government rejected its recommendations.

Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or “ballooning” as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning. Even if the slaughterman is a master of his craft and the cut to the neck is clean, blood is carried to the brain by vertebral arteries and it keeps cattle conscious of their pain." [9]


[edit] Removed six Austrian provinces for the second time from the list of shehitah bans

Removed Austria (for the second time) from the list of countries banning shehitah. The reference given was from 2002, and since 2005 Austria has federally permitted shehitah with post-stunning: Federal Act on the Protection of Animals (Animal Protection Act – TSchG) See chapter two section §32 [18] This (false) information was also inserted in the French article, and I have removed it there. Aso the (false) information that Greece bans shehitah (which it does not) was inserted in the French article and I have removed it there (reference given was to an interview on a vegan site, but no trace of the Greek ban in the interview anywhere. RPSM (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)