• Full Story

Dutch to join NZ on religious animal slaughter ban

Print

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 9:17a.m.

The threat of a possible ban has led to outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups (Reuters file)

The threat of a possible ban has led to outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups (Reuters file)

By Toby Sterling

The Dutch parliament has passed a bill banning the slaughter of livestock without stunning it first, removing an exemption that has allowed Jews and Muslims to butcher animals according to their centuries-old dietary rules.

If enacted and enforced, religious groups say observant Jews and Muslims will have to import meat from abroad, stop eating it altogether, or leave the Netherlands.

However, the bill must still pass the Senate, which is unlikely before the summer recess, and the Cabinet said Monday the law may be unenforceable in its current form due in part to ambiguity introduced in a last-minute amendment.

If the Netherlands outlaws procedures that make meat kosher for Jews or halal for Muslims, it will be the second country after New Zealand to do so in recent years. It will join Switzerland, the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, whose bans are mostly traceable to pre-World War II anti-Semitism.

In New York, the Anti-Defamation League condemned the vote, with its national director, Abraham H. Foxmam, calling it "a de facto ban on kosher slaughter" that "has repudiated the Netherlands' historic commitment to religious freedom".

"Dutch Jews must not be put to the choice of violating a central tenet of Judaism, foregoing fresh meat, or emigrating. We call upon the Dutch Senate to prevent this action from leading to a clear violation of religious freedom that has a disproportionate impact on the Jewish community," Foxman said in a statement.

Dutch Deputy Secretary of Economic Affairs and Agriculture Henk Blekers said: "The Cabinet will give its judgment over the proposed law after it has been treated by both houses."

The Cabinet will "also look at how it fits with freedom of religion," Blekers said, citing the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawmaker Marianne Thieme of the Party for the Animals - the world's first animal rights party to win seats in a national parliament - welcomed the approval of the bill that she had first introduced in 2008, and said she was now prepared to defend it in the Senate.

"It's a great honour," she said. She has argued that sparing animals needless pain and distress outweighs religious groups' rights to follow slaughter practices "no longer of our time".

But the threat of a possible ban has led to outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups who say it infringes on their right to freedom of religion.

Around 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, mostly immigrants from Turkey and Morocco. The once-strong Jewish community now numbers 40,000-50,000 after more that 70 percent were deported and killed by the Nazis during World War II.

"The Dutch Jewish community is small and the Jewish kosher meat consumption is smaller still, but the impact on our community is deep and large," said a committee of rabbis pleading with parliament not to pass the law in an open letter Tuesday.

"Older Jews are frightened and wonder what the next law will be that limits their religious life. The youth are openly asking whether they still have a future that they can or want to build in the Netherlands."

A solid majority of Dutch voters say they support the ban, and parliament voted for it by a margin of 116 for to 30 against.

Ritual slaughter rules prescribe that animals' throats must be cut swiftly with a razor-sharp knife while they are still conscious, so that they bleed to death quickly.

Support for the ban came from the political left, which sees ritual slaughter as inhumane, and from the anti-immigration right, which sees it as foreign and barbaric.

Only Christian parties were opposed, arguing the ban undermines the country's long tradition of religious tolerance.

Centrist parties were initially divided, with many of them loath to lose support of Muslim voters. Last week they introduced an amendment that says ritual slaughterers may still be granted licenses - if they can "prove" that it does not cause animals more pain than stunning.

Science is divided as to whether ritual slaughter does cause more suffering.

The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association says it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged".

Other observers, including noted American welfare expert Temple Grandin of Colorado State University, has said animals do not appear to show more distress when a ritual slaughter is conducted properly.

Elbakkali Elkhammar, chairman of the Dutch Council of Imams, said that religious groups should be given the benefit of the doubt.

"There are various opinions about this matter, both from Islamic jurisprudence as medical science, that sometimes approve of other protocols for ritual slaughter and sometimes forbid them," he said in a statement.

"The solution is therefore to leave the rules unchanged."

AP

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

30 Jun 2011 12:55a.m.

MAK wrote:

@Paul Well technically speaking, If the aorta is slit, the brain doesn't receive the pain signals of the trauma and hence allows for the heart to keep pumping and pushing out all the blood and intoxicants in a natural manner. If the animal has to suffer because of a blunt blade. that's forbidden. Those who practice this are ignorant and foolish.

29 Jun 2011 10:10p.m.

Paul wrote:

@Mak, Spin it how you want Mak, you just want all the blood out beacuse it suits you better, well I will just drain my meat a bit longer and still have it stunned. And a lot of the time the blade isn't sharp and many cuts have to be made and it can take many minutes for the animal to die. Watch a couple of the videos of the aussie cattle in Indonesia. What a load of rubbish that it is done that way to make it more painless, you just want the heart pumping for as long as it can to get more blood out and don't care what the animal feels. Stop thinking of your own benifit and give a little thought to the animal that has to die.

29 Jun 2011 09:05p.m.

MAK wrote:

Well, A primary objective behind slaughtering meat in the Kosher/Halal way is that the animal will feel the least amount of pain and the blood drains out from the carcass. Any other way does not ensure a painless slaughtering or that the blood is drained out properly which can lead to many diseases as a result of blood in the veins of the animal. As far as animal rights are concerned. If meat is slaughtered the Halal/Kosher way, every effort is made to ensure that the blades are sharp and the throat is slitted properly. If the above is not observed, its not Kosher/Halaal. I would strongly suggest that the MumboJumbo animal fanatics do research on this topic and reconsider. Its Ok to be wrong because you have been misinformed by sensationalist animal activists.

29 Jun 2011 08:19p.m.

Paul wrote:

I'm sure if they had stunning back when the bible was written the powers that be would say "do it that way" as I don't think any ones god would want to see any of his creatures suffer. So I don't think The higher power would mind if Jews and Muslims "bent " the rules a bit.

29 Jun 2011 12:36p.m.

brian wrote:

katrina: Try getting your neck cut BEFORE being stunned. Do you think - and no way is that an option - you would know the difference in the level of pain being inflicted? I think your already "stunned" with/by ignorance.

29 Jun 2011 12:29p.m.

brian wrote:

Food is food. We all need it whether it be animal or vegetable. How our food is harvested for consumption should ONLY relate to the most humane method rather the mumbo-jumbo of any of the multitude of - so called - "religious" customs. Would any of these - so called - religious fanatics "know" the difference if the food was served up in a double blind study? Definitely not. Would "the food" be "different" nutritionally? Doubt that too, unless it was microwaved during the process. Let's get mumbo-jumbo out of the equation and only focus on what is the most appropriate and humane way to get our sustenance. To all the zealots out there, ask yourself this: If you had a knife stuck into you, would you feel pain? AND next time you have to go under the surgeons scalpel, will you reject anaesthesia? I bet you won't. All you zealots, get a life and "think" - if you can - how "YOU" would want to be treated if "YOU" found yourself in someone elses food chain.

29 Jun 2011 10:40a.m.

katrina wrote:

If the aim of the kosher killing is for the animal to die faster then what is the problem? surely being stunned before death is worse.