Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

The legal aspects of ritual slaughter include the regulation of slaughterhouses, butchers, and religious personnel involved with traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiĥa (Islamic). Regulations also may extend to butchery products sold in accordance with kashrut and halal religious law. Governments regulate ritual slaughter, primarily through legislation and administrative law. In addition, compliance with oversight of ritual slaughter is monitored by governmental agencies and, on occasion, contested in litigation.

For aspects of ritual slaughter governed by religious law, see shechita and dhabiĥa.

Scope of regulations

In Western countries, law reaches into every stage of ritual slaughter, from the slaughtering of livestock to the sale of kosher or halal meat.

In the United States, for example, courts have ruled that kosher butchers may be excluded from collective bargaining units, a Jewish beit din (court) may forbid trade with disapproved butchers, retail sellers implicitly stipulate their compliance with rabbinic courts, a state law (NY) may incorporate a rabbinical ruling on kosher labeling, and kashrut symbols may be subject to trade infringement laws.

Due to differences between ritual and mainstream slaughtering practices, kosher slaughter may be exempted from animal welfare laws. For instance, in the United States, the Humane Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. section 1901) exempts ritual slaughter and this exemption has been upheld as constitutional.

The kosher food industry has challenged regulations as an infringement on religious freedom.

Secular governments also have sought to restrict ritual slaughter not intended for food consumption. In the U.S., the most prominent such case is Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unconstitutional a local Florida ban on Santeria ritual animal sacrifice.

Ritual slaughter practice

Conveyor restraint system for humane ritual slaughter. Used in some US slaughterhouses. (Temple Grandin, 1996)

According to Jewish law and to Muslim law, animals must be slaughtered by a single cut to the throat while the animal is still conscious.

Historic and current bans

Some rulers banned all killing on their land for some period each year, included ritual slaughter.

In Switzerland shechitah was forbidden throughout the whole country in 1893 after having been banned in the cantons of Aargau and St Gallen in 1867.[3][4] Norway banned shechita in 1930. Germany banned shechita three months after Hitler came to power in 1933, Sweden banned it in 1937 and a ban was enforced in Poland with the Nazi invasion in 1939 (see section below on Nazi Germany).

Bans introduced by the German Third Reich and by Mussolini were removed by Allied Command when the Allies liberated Europe. Today, bans on shechita exist in Switzerland (in the Constitution), Norway, Iceland and Sweden.

Opponents of ritual slaughter bans argue that the practice is humane, that objections are based on antisemitism and that no scientific evidence exists to prove that ritual slaughter causes more suffering to animals than other methods. Ritual slaughter is one of two methods of slaughter defined as humane by the federal Humane Slaughter Act in the USA.

The issue is complicated by allegations of antisemitism and xenophobia. Recent proposals originating from animal welfare advocates to ban or maintain existing bans on ritual slaughter have garnered noticeable support from people with anti-Jewish and/or anti-immigrant agendas, as the measures can be viewed to be targeting Jewish or Muslim minorities. Additionally, Spain, in its recent enactment of a ban, has drawn criticism and accusations of veiled antisemitism for focusing on religious ritual slaughter for alleged animal welfare concerns in the apparent systematic absence of concern for other similar animal welfare issues. Lastly, recent debate in Switzerland has been contentious, in part, because of comparisons by a prominent activist between kosher slaughter and the methods used by Nazis in concentration camps.

Nazi Germany

"One of the first enactments of the Nazis in 1933 was to outlaw the Jewish method of slaughter," warned Rabbi Yehuda Brodie, registrar of the Manchester Beth Din.

The Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) shows "Jews rejoice at the suffering of animals" in a gruesome slaughter scene.

European Union

The European Union directive, "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter", generally requires stunning before slaughter, but allows member states to allow exemptions for religious slaughter: "Each Contracting Party may authorize derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: - slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals ...". The only member of the European Union to ban shehitah is Sweden. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (not EU members) are the only other countries to ban shehitah in Europe.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which includes the freedom to manifest a religion or belief in, inter alia, practice and observance, subject only to such restrictions as are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society."

In May 2009 the European Parliament voted in favour of allowing ritual slaughter in member states.

France

In Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, 27 June 2000, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a case involving a lawsuit by Glatt kosher slaughterers against a French law recognizing a non-Glatt association (the ACIP) as having the exclusive right to conduct Jewish ritual slaughter in France. The Court stated that ritual slaughter is a practice covered by the Article 9's guarantee of the right to manifest religious observance:

"It is not contested that ritual slaughter, as indeed its name indicates, constitutes a rite or "rite"...whose purpose is to provide Jews with meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with religious prescriptions, which is an essential aspect of practice of the Jewish religion...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."

The Court then clarified the scope of Article 9, holding that it applies only to restrictions which would prevent consumers from being able to obtain ritually slaughtered meat:

"In the Court’s opinion, there would be interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable. But that is not the case. It is not contested that the applicant association can easily obtain supplies of "glatt" meat in Belgium. Furthermore, it is apparent from the written depositions and bailiffs’ official reports produced by the interveners that a number of butcher’s shops operating under the control of the ACIP make meat certified "glatt" by the Beth Din available to Jews."

Thus, under the Court of Human Rights' interpretation (not unanimous) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Cha'are Shalom case, restrictions on ritual slaughter are permissible, but only if they do not prevent religious adherents from obtaining religiously slaughtered meat.

Germany

On January 15, 2002 the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides a broader guarantee of human rights in the area of religious freedom than the European Convention on Human Rights. In an appeal by a Turkish citizen who practiced Islamic ritual slaughter, the German court struck down Germany's former ban on ritual slaughter, holding that the German Basic Law's guarantee of religious freedom prohibited the German government from applying a law requiring stunning prior to slaughter to observant Moslems who practice ritual slaughter for religious reasons, and that the Basic Law's guarantee of religious freedom applies to slaughterers as well as consumers of meat.

The German court held that under Article 2.1 of the German Basic Law, religious slaughterers have a distinct fundamental right to practice a religiously-recognized vocation. It also explained that merely permitting importation of ritually slaughtered meat is inadequate to protect the religious rights of individuals under Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the German Basic Law (Constitution) because personal contact is important to ensuring compliance with religious requirements. It held that an exemption from laws that conflicted with this was therefore mandated:

It is true that the consumption of imported meat makes such renunciation [of meat-eating] dispensable; however, due to the fact that in this case, the personal contact to the butcher and the confidence that goes with such contact do not exist, the consumption of imported meat is fraught with the insecurity whether the meat really complies with the commandments of Islam....Under these circumstances, an exemption from the mandatory stunning of warm-blooded animals before their blood is drained cannot be precluded if the intention connected with this exemption is to facilitate, on the one hand, the practice of a profession with a religious character, which is protected by fundamental rights, and, on the other hand, the observation of religious dietary laws by the customers of the person who practices the occupation in question. Without such exemptions, the fundamental rights of those who want to perform slaughter without stunning as their occupation would be unreasonably restricted, and the interests of the protection of animals would, without a sufficient constitutional justification, be given priority in a one-sided manner.

Sweden

All except fish must be stunned before slaughter. There is no exception for religious slaughter.

While the kosher and halal slaughter of poultry in Sweden is prohibited commercially, for private household purposes it is permitted.

Fredrik Malm, a member of the Swedish parliament, stated in 2006, in an unsuccessful motion to allow religious slaughter in Sweden, "In 1933 shehitah was banned in Germany, just after Adolf Hitler had come to power. Shehitah was banned in Sweden in 1937. In all the areas the Nazis controlled shehitah was banned. Therefore it cannot be disregarded that Swedish legislation was powerfully influenced by Hitler's Germany and the Nazi regime. Shehitah is only forbidden in Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. According to a EU directive, all forms of religious slaughter should be permitted. Therefore it is my view that Sweden, which is a member of the EU, should follow this directive."

The Swedish law governing slaughter is worded exactly the same as the Swiss law - "that the animal must be stunned before bleeding". All the legislation that the Allies removed in the various countries where ritual slaughter was banned by the Nazis had this wording so that Jewish and Muslim slaughter was banned without Jews or Muslims being mentioned by name in the law.

At the present time of writing Sweden is the only country in the European Union that bans ritual slaughter.

Other European countries

In the rest of Europe the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country. While countries that had Nazis and antisemites in parliament in the 1930s introduced bans, democratic countries the US, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands) introduced legislation protecting shehitah.

• Countries in which animals must be stunned right after the cut include Denmark, Finland, the Lower Austria province.

• Countries that impose stunning before slaughter with no exception and therefore ban shehitah and halal slaughter without mentioning them by name comprise Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Sweden.

• In the Netherlands, halal slaughter includes some pre-mortem stunning. The Netherlands is one of the countries that introduced legislative protection for shehitah.

• Spain allows ritual slaughter for sheep and goats but not for cattle.

• For Belgium, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal further information is needed.

Finland

Finland's law on slaughter dates from the 1930s and allows post-stunning thereby providing legislative protection for Jewish and Muslim slaughter. Dhabhiha (halal slaughter) is practised in Finland, but there are not sufficient resources for Jewish slaughter, and all kosher meat is imported.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands do not have a ban, but allow some forms of ritual slaughter due to freedom of religion. The Netherlands, like Switzerland, have considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. Rabbi Melchior, who was serving as Israeli deputy foreign minister at the time of the Dutch debate, said "they simply don't want foreigners and they don't want Jews."

Norway

In the 1890s, protests were raised in the Norwegian press against the practice of shechita. Although the Jewish community responded to these objections by assuring the public that the method was in fact humane, the controversy continued until 1929, when the Norwegian parliament banned the practice. The ban remains in force today.

Efforts to ban shechita put sincere humane society activists in league with antisemitic individuals. In particular, Jonas Søhr used the cause as a means to attack not just the slaughter methods of the small Jewish community in Norway, but also the community itself. Those opposing the ban included Fridtjof Nansen, but the division on the issue crossed party lines in all mainstream parties, except the Farmer's Party, which was principled in its opposition to schechita.

A committee was commissioned on February 11, 1927 that consulted numerous experts and visited a slaughterhouse in Copenhagen. Its majority favored a ban and found support in the Department of Agriculture and the parliamentary agriculture committee. Those who opposed a ban spoke of religious tolerance, and also found that schechita was no more inhumane than other slaughter methods. C J Hambro was one of those most appalled by the antisemitic invective, noting that "where animal rights are protected to an exaggerated extent, it usually is done with the help of human sacrifice"

The former chief rabbi of Norway, Michael Melchior, argues that antisemitism 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.'"

Spain

"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."

Switzerland

The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1893.

"In Switzerland, a ban on kosher slaughter has been enforced since 1897, when the people supported this measure through a referendum with clear anti-Semitic undertones. At the time, Jews had recently been granted full civil rights and some Swiss citizens feared an invasion of Jewish migrants from Eastern Europe, who they considered to be unassimilable, foreign and unreliable. By banning the performance of a core Jewish ritual, the Swiss people found a disguised way to limit the immigration of Jews into Switzerland."

"Ritual slaughter (the bleeding to death of animals that have not first been stunned) was made illegal in the country in 1893; however, a 1978 Law on the Protection of Animals explicitly allows for the importation of kosher and halal meat. Imported from France and Germany, this meat is available in the country at comparable prices. In 2003, a popular initiative to protect animal rights and prohibit the import of meat from animals bled without stunning was filed; in December 2005, however, the sponsors withdrew their initiative before it had been submitted to a national vote after Parliament adopted a revision of the Law on the Protection of Animals."[5]

There was a backlash against a proposal to lift the ban in 2002. "In 2002, when the Swiss government attempted to lift the century-old ban, animal rights activists, extremist political groups (on the left and the right), and unaffiliated citizens expressed violent opposition. They called shechita practice a "barbaric" and "sanguinary," an "archaic tradition from the time of the ghettos," and asked Jews to either become vegetarian or leave the country."

Proposals to extend ban to imports

Switzerland have considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. The Swiss Animal Association called for a referendum on banning kosher imports. Christopher Blocher, a cabinet minister for the Swiss People's Party, has supported calls to ban the import of kosher and halal meat.

"A recent survey showed more than three-quarters of the population said they would like to see their government ban even the import of kosher meat. Erwin Kessler, an animal rights activist, has been campaigning vigorously for this. He’s 40,000 short of the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a referendum to completely ban kosher and halal meat entering Switzerland. Kessler has inflamed the controversy by publicly comparing kosher slaughter to the methods used by Nazis in concentration camps, but denies that his motives are, in fact, anti-semitic."

"Should a proposed ban on the import of kosher meat be accepted by the Swiss people in 2006, it will effectively force Jews who observe kashrut to abstain from the consumption of meat. Muslims will also be affected by this move."

United States

The United States is one of the countries that has legislation for protection of shehitah: Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter.

Since 1958 the United States has prohibited the shackling and hoisting of cattle without stunning them first. The Humane Slaughter Act defines ritual slaughter as one of two humane methods of slaughter.

In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the United States Supreme Court struck down a ban imposed by the City of Hialeah, Florida, on Santeria religious animal sacrifices practiced by the Church as contravening the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution of the United States. While the City of Hialeah claimed that its ban on ritual slaughter "not for the primary purpose of food consumption" was motivated by concerns for animal welfare and public health, the Supreme Court held that ample evidence showed that it was in fact motivated by animosity to the Santeria religion and a desire to suppress it:

That the ordinances were enacted " `because of,' not merely `in spite of,' " their suppression of Santeria religious practice is revealed by the events preceding enactment of the ordinances. The minutes and taped excerpts of the June 9 session, both of which are in the record, evidence significant hostility exhibited by residents, members of the city council, and other city officials toward the Santeria religion and its practice of animal sacrifice. The public crowd that attended the June 9 meetings interrupted statements by council members critical of Santeria with cheers and the brief comments of Pichardo with taunts. When Councilman Martinez, a supporter of the ordinances, stated that in prerevolution Cuba "people were put in jail for practicing this religion," the audience applauded. Other statements by members of the city council were in a similar vein. For example, Councilman Martinez, after noting his belief that Santeria was outlawed in Cuba, questioned, "if we could not practice this [religion] in our homeland [Cuba], why bring it to this country?" Councilman Cardoso said that Santeria devotees at the Church "are in violation of everything this country stands for."...Various Hialeah city officials made comparable comments. The chaplain of the Hialeah Police Department told the city council that Santeria was a sin, "foolishness," "an abomination to the Lord," and the worship of "demons." He advised the city council that "We need to be helping people and sharing with them the truth that is found in Jesus Christ." He concluded: "I would exhort you . . . not to permit this Church to exist." The city attorney commented that Resolution 87-66 indicated that "This community will not tolerate religious practices which are abhorrent to its citizens . . . ." Similar comments were made by the deputy city attorney. This history discloses the object of the ordinances to target animal sacrifice by Santeria worshippers because of its religious motivation.

In sum, the neutrality inquiry leads to one conclusion: The ordinances had as their object the suppression of religion. The pattern we have recited discloses animosity to Santeria adherents and their religious practices; the ordinances by their own terms target this religious exercise; the texts of the ordinances were gerrymandered with care to proscribe religious killings of animals but to exclude almost all secular killings; and the ordinances suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary in order to achieve the legitimate ends asserted in their defense. These ordinances are not neutral, and the courtbelow committed clear error in failing to reach this conclusion

The Court also found that the city's proffered reasons for its ban simply did not explain or justify it.

Respondent claims that [the ordinances] advance two interests: protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals. The ordinances are underinclusive for those ends. They fail to prohibit non religious conduct that endangers these interests in a similar or greater degree than Santeria sacrifice does. The underinclusion is substantial, not inconsequential. Despite the city's proffered interest in preventing cruelty to animals, the ordinances are drafted with care to forbid few killings but those occasioned by religious sacrifice. Many types of animal deaths or kills for nonreligious reasons are either not prohibited or approved by express provision.

The United States Supreme Court held that animal sacrifice and ritual slaughter were practices protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty and that government could not enact targeted legislation suppressing religious practices under a guise of protecting animal welfare or promoting public health.

Temple Grandin, who is both an animal welfare activist and the leading American designer of commercial slaughterhouses, has outlined techniques for humane ritual slaughter. She considers shackling and hoisting of animals for slaughter to be inhumane, and has developed alternative approaches usable in production plants. Grandin has coordinated this with the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement in the United States, and in 2000 the Committee voted to accept her approach, ruling that "Now that kosher, humane slaughter using upright pens is both possible and widespread, we find shackling and hoisting to be a violation of Jewish laws forbidding cruelty to animals and requiring that we avoid unnecessary dangers to human life. As the CJLS, then, we rule that shackling and hoisting should be stopped."

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. In 2008, though, Grandin reported that Agriprocessors had again become "sloppy" in their slaughter operation and was "in the bottom 10%" of slaughterhouses.

Proposed bans

United Kingdom

Both England and Scotland have legislation for the protection of Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter.

The government of the United Kingdom has never introduced or passed any ban on ritual slaughter.

Proposals from animal welfare groups

Since the mid-1980s, proposals have repeatedly surfaced from the animal welfare advocacy groups based on animal cruelty concerns.

Most recently, the debate was reignited by the findings of a 2003 report by the UK government funded Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). FAWC, which provides advice to the UK government on livestock animal welfare issues, says that the methods employed in Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter resulted in "severe suffering to animals" and recommended an end to the current exemptions in British law that permit religious slaughter.

FAWC's concern was based on their finding that cattle require up to two minutes to bleed to death when ritual slaughter is employed. Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, chairwomen of FAWC, explained it to the BBC: "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."

Compassion in World Farming, a European animal welfare organization, voiced support for FAWC's recommendation: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."^{[broken footnote]}

Peter Jinman, the president of the British Veterinary Association said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that veterinarians respected people's religious beliefs but also urged for respecting animals. He continued "We're looking at what is acceptable in the moral and ethical society we live in."^{[broken footnote]}

Roy Saich, a spokesman for the Humanists movement, is quoted as saying:

"There is no imperative for Muslims or Judaists to eat meat produced in this manner [...] There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us."^{[broken footnote]}

"But for the most part, British Jews believe their government when it stresses that this ban has been proposed with the sole intention of minimizing animal distress. But that doesn’t mean they agree with it."

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. 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."

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:

"On the far right [...] the move by some activists into so-called animal rights and farmers' campaigns against central government, has led to a small but growing movement against shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter). In March 1998 [...] copies of a new BNP journal, British Countryman, were distributed. This contained an article entitled 'Stop the Real Cruelty,' which stated: 'Hundreds of thousands of animals die in terror and agony by having their throats slashed open without humane stunning. Halal and kosher ritual slaughter of fully conscious animals is a barbaric affront to the British tradition of livestock [...] Ritual slaughter is a deliberate torture!'"

Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine, wrote in February 2003, describing that the BNP again renewed its opposition to Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Searchlight gave this description of the party: "Today's BNP is as Islamophobic as it is antisemitic."

See also

• Shechita Jewish method of ritual slaughter
• Dhabihah Muslim method of ritual slaughter
• Jhatka antithesis of ritual slaughter
• Animal sacrifice
• Animal welfare

Further reading

Legislation protecting shechita : text of laws and regulations in various countries / compiled by Michael L. Munk Munk, Michael L. (co-author) Agudath Israel of America. Legislative Commission of Agudath Israel of America, 1976

THE SWISS AND THE JEWS John M. Efron: The Most Cruel Cut of All? The Campaign Against Jewish Ritual Slaughter in Fin-de-Siècle Switzerland and Germany. Abstracts of 3 touching on Switzerland and anti-shehitah legislation.

References

Part of a series on the Islamic Jurisprudence – a discipline of Islamic studies

Fields

Economical Political Marital Criminal Etiquette Theological Hygiene Islamic cleanliness Taharah Ihram Wudu Ghusl Tayammum Miswak Najis Sexual hygiene Dietary laws Dhabihah – Slaughter Banned slaughtering of animals Comparison to kashrut Toilet etiquette Military