Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [1]. 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." [2] 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.[3]. 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."[4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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", [5], 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." [6]
• 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." [7] --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. [8]. 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.

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.[9] Hunting for sport is a separate issue, but Britain banned fox hunting in the Hunting Act of 2004 [10]. (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. [11] 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.[12]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". [13]--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).

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)

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)

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)

Is Martin Anreasson a reliable source? // Liftarn (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. (pp 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)

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)

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." 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."

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." 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."

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 [14] 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)

"The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902." no, they did not

I have limited computer time, and will return with references. RPSM (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

very silly to divide the subject up into countries and tell their stories individually

The story of the shehitah agitation has already been told. It is one movement from 1860 forwards with Hitler playing a major part. Impossible to tell it with the article in this state. 62.127.255.15 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

Found this abstract in Leo Baeck (College?) Yearbook, but not actual article. (Correction: these are three articles that follow printed in the reference given. They are not abstracts, but short articles - papers given at a conference on Swiss Jewry - see link. By and large an article on legal aspects of ritual slaughter/religious slaughter( Jewish and Muslim slaughter and the legas aspects should follow these lines. RPSM (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.leobaeck.co.uk/images/Report%202008.pdf Beatrix Mesmer: The Banning of Jewish Ritual Slaughter in Switzerland Switzerland is the only country in which a ban of Jewish ritual slaughter has existed since the end of the nineteenth century. Although the Swiss government and parliament opposed it, the regulation that animals had to be stunned prior to ritual slaughter was included in the constitution in 1893 because the right of the people to initiate or change legislation by referendum (Volksabstimmung) had been introduced two years before. In this instance animal rights organisations were the driving force behind the initative to ban ritual slaughter – a ban which contradicted the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. While campaigning for their cause and when collecting signatures for their initiative these organisations relied on the latent antisemistim of parts of the Swiss population. Despite appeals put forward by the Swiss Jewish Community Confederation (Schweizerischer Israelitischer Gemeindebund or SIG), founded in response to these attacks on their religious practices, the ban on Jewish ritual slaughter was not lifted during the First or the Second World War. Problems with importing kosher meat merely led to a slight relaxation of slaughtering regulations. Only when Switzerland signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which guaranteed religious freedom, was this regulation struck from the constitution. However, the ban on ritual slaughter was not abolished but, in 1973, following pressure exerted by the animal rights organisations which argued that public feeling was on their side, simply incorporated into new animal protection legislation. This means nothing has changed for those religious minorities whose religious practices include ritual slaughter. Thus, in the foreseeable future Switzerland will remain a place where animal rights are regarded as more important than the human right to exercise one’s religion freely.