Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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.

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.168.173 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Active bans ?

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

• there are many halal or kosher butchers in Paris (for instance, browse this list of butchers from the ministry of Agriculture with the word halal or cacher, or this Jewish web site in English)
• official regulations don't forbid ritual slaughter as long as it is done in a slaughterhouse :

"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 :

• Some countries allow ritual slaughter : France, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Portugal.

• In some countries, animals need to be stunned right after the sacrificing cut : Denmark, Finland, the Lower Austria province.

• Some countries impose stunning before slaughter with no exception : Sweden , Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, six of the eight provinces of Austria.

• in Netherland, halal slaughter includes some pre-mortem stunning .

• Spain allows ritual slaughter for ovine and caprine but not for cattle.

• the situation in Greece is disputed : it bans ritual slaughter according to a report from the EU commission, but an official Italian report says the opposite.

The part about the United States remained unchanged

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)

Notes

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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:

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)

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

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. Tomer^talk 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

change of signature

My comments as Robert PS

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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, 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".

In 2006, the Orthodox Union, Temple Grandin, and Agriprocessors had reportedly resolved their problems.

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)

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)