Dutch Consider Banning Religious Animal Slaughter

[tw009]

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Toby Sterling, Associated Press – Fri Apr 8, 1:57 pm ET

AMSTERDAM – One of Europe's first countries to allow Jews to practice their religion openly may soon pass a law banning centuries-old Jewish and Muslim traditions on the ritual slaughter of animals.

In the Netherlands, an unlikely alliance of an animal rights party and the xenophobic Freedom Party is spearheading support for the ban on kosher and halal slaughter methods that critics say inflict unacceptable suffering on animals.

The far right's embrace of the bill, which is expected to go to a parliamentary vote this month, is based mostly on its strident hostility toward the Dutch Muslim population. The Party for the Animals, the world's first such party to be elected to parliament, says humane treatment of animals trumps traditions of tolerance.

Jewish and Muslim groups call the initiative an affront to freedom of religion.

"I can speak for the Dutch Jewish Community and I think for the wider Jewish world, that this law raises grave concerns about infringements on religious freedom," said Ruben Vis, spokesman for the Netherlands' CJO, an umbrella of Jewish organizations.

Abdulfatteh Ali-Salah, director of Halal Correct, a certification body for Dutch halal meat, said he felt the debate made Muslims in the Netherlands feel Dutch society is more interested in animal welfare than fair treatment of its Muslim citizens.

"If the law goes through now there's nothing else to do but protest," he said. "And that's what we'll do."

As in most western countries, Dutch law dictates that butchers must stun livestock — render it unconscious — before it can be slaughtered, to minimize the animals' pain and fear. But an exception is made for meat that must be prepared under ancient Jewish and Muslim dietary laws and practices. These demand that animals be slaughtered while still awake, by swiftly cutting the main arteries of their necks with razor-sharp knives.

Most Dutch favor a ban, but many centrist parties feel the issue is a distraction from the more serious issue of abuses at regular slaughterhouses. One of the two parties in the Cabinet, the Christian Democrats, opposes the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities. The other, the pro-business VVD Party, has yet to say which way it will vote.

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

Holland has proud traditions of tolerance and was one of the first countries in Europe to allow Jews to live openly with their religion in the 17th Century.

After years of campaigning unsuccessfully, the Party for the Animals won a seat parliament in 2006, the first time an animal rights party had entered a national parliament. Around the same time, the anti-Islam Freedom Party of maverick politician Geert Wilders was gaining strength. It finished third in national elections last year on an anti-immigration platform.

The Muslim population, built on a wave of migration in the 1990s, is now about 1 million in a country of 16 million. Dutch Jews number an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 after 70 percent of their community died in Nazi concentration camps.

The two political parties pushing hardest for the ban make for an odd couple, falling at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

"Religious freedom isn't unlimited," said Party for the Animals leader Marianne Thieme in an interview. She said the law will be "good news for the two million animals that are slaughtered (without stunning) each year in our country. It's not a small amount."

Wilders first brought the issue forward in 2007, when he heard that halal meat was being served at a public school in Amsterdam. "Muslims at our schools must adjust to Dutch norms and values and not the other way around," he wrote in a letter questioning government policy.

Wilders and the Freedom Party did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The U.S.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor have both spoken out against the proposed ban.

"What's worse is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that slaughter without stunning is more harmful or painful for animals," Vis of the CJO said.

Science surrounding animal slaughter is contentious. A 2009 study in New Zealand that monitored calf brain waves during ritual slaughter concluded the animals probably were aware of their pain. That led the country to ban the practice in 2010.

However, noted American animal welfare expert Temple Grandin of Colorado State University has criticized flaws in the New Zealand study, remarking in particular that the knife used was probably too short.

"The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is important," she wrote in a paper published on her website. In her experience "when the knife is used correctly on adult cattle, there was little or no behavioral reaction," she wrote — indicating that the animals did not show signs of suffering before falling unconscious.

The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association has come out in favor of banning the practice.

The organization said in a position statement it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged."

Scientists, animal rights groups and religious groups disagree about the amount of pain and suffering animals experience during slaughter under regular conditions — though all say violations of current law are widespread.

Ali-Salah predicted an outright ban would fail not only due to Dutch domestic political considerations, but also because it is not workable in practice.

"How are one million people going to obtain halal meat from a new source?" he said. "They are certainty not going to stop eating meat overnight."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/..._slaughter_ban

[Ramadhan]

This is clearly another attack on religious practices.

While it has been proven in several studies that slaughtering animals is the best way to kill animal for food.

It is ridiculous and such a blatant hypocrisy that they are trying to ban slaughtering (to end the lives of) animals to eat, while in the meantime, they are allowing such widespread intense (many lifelong) cruelties of unimanigably much larger number of animals such as the sale of furs, the practice and sale of foie gras (where geese are force-fed and couldnt move -lifelong- to produce enlarged liver), battery -lifelong- chicken, etc. Those animals suffer much pain throughout their lives, but are they going to be banned? unlikely. and that's because muslims do not practice them.

Clearly this banning is another avenue to attack religious practices by an increasingly hostile europe towards religions.

[Zafran]

salaam

How do they know stunning an animal creates less pain for the animal??? - Hope they ban scientists from testing on animals for research purposes as well.

peace

[Abdul-Raouf]

One of the two parties in the Cabinet, the Christian Democrats, opposes the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities. The other, the pro-business VVD Party, has yet to say which way it will vote.

Oh ??
that was a surprise... they are yet to know that - their international image was already damaged long back..

[Ummu Sufyaan]

whats so wrong with slaughtering animals? its the most humane thing for both the human and the animal

[Trumble]

whats so wrong with slaughtering animals? its the most humane thing for both the human and the animal

Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.

As to your second point, the most humane thing for both is not to slaughter animals for food at all. In the 21st century there is just no need to do so, the alternatives are just as tasty and nutritious, often healthier, avoid any cruelty, and utilize agricultural land (in a world with a rapidly growing population) far more efficiently.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Both methods are 'slaughtering',

both methods of what?

although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.

you're getting your sources from youtube?

As to your second point, the most humane thing for both is not to slaughter animals for food at all. In the 21st century there is just no need to do so, the alternatives are just as tasty and nutritious, often healthier, avoid any cruelty, and utilize agricultural land (in a world with a rapidly growing population) far more efficiently.

What differences does it make if there are healthier alternatives. 1) animals aren't just used for their meat . we also use animals for their wool to keep us warm etc, skins to make water bottles from, etc.

not everyone lives a comfortable lifestyle.

even if they are only used for their meat, there is still nothing wrong with slaughtering them....there is nothing inhumane about slaughtering. there should be no "bullying" into not slaughtering under the pretext of "avoiding cruelty."

take the proper precautions, and there should be no distress caused to the animal (or to the human for someone who doesn't know who to slaughter ) treat the animal right, use a sharp knife, dont slaughter the animal in front of other animals as to not cause them distress...what is the problem?

[marwen]

That's really silly.
Another attempt to hide their anti-islam hostility.
Another way to say "We don't want to see islam practiced in our country". Though, it would be more respectful if they just said it frankly.
Why do they care too much if some one slaughters his own animal ?

[Trumble]

both methods of what?

Both ritual religious and the abbatoir (slaughterhouse) version of killing animals are both means of 'slaughtering' them.

you're getting your sources from youtube?

I could have linked to some videos of what happens in slaughterhouses if you like; I chose not to do so because I didn't think some of the kids here should see them. A simple search will suffice if you look. I was actually making the point that such slaughter is no more 'humane' than the religiously prescribed versions, so I'm not quite sure what your beef is. If you'll forgive the pun.

What differences does it make if there are healthier alternatives. 1) animals aren't just used for their meat . we also use animals for their wool to keep us warm etc, skins to make water bottles from, etc.

In some parts of the world that may be true, and indeed in a very few parts there is no alternative to eating meat as well due to the lack of land suitable for other agricultural uses. In most of the rest of the world, though, there are water bottles made of plastic and clothes made of synthetic fibres. I'd also point out that slaughtering animals farmed for wool is somewhat counter-productive!

even if they are only used for their meat, there is still nothing wrong with slaughtering them....there is nothing inhumane about slaughtering. there should be no "bullying" into not slaughtering under the pretext of "avoiding cruelty."

Frankly anyone who thinks slaughtering animals does not involve inflicting pain and suffering on them, however you choose to do it, is fooling themselves. That does not make it necessarily inhumane unless there is no justifiable reason to do it, in which case I don't see how it can be anything but. I don't disagree with the last phrase, assuming you mean ritual slaughter compared to other forms. My argument is that it is both unnecessary and inhumane to do it either way in most places. By the way, here's another one; BBC

Nitrogen pollution from farms, vehicles, industry and waste treatment is costing the EU up to £280bn (320bn euros) a year, a report says. The study by 200 European experts says reactive nitrogen contributes to air pollution, fuels climate change and is estimated to shorten the life of the average resident by six months. Livestock farming is one of the biggest causes of nitrogen pollution, it adds. It calls for changes in farming and more controls on vehicles and industry. The problem would be greatly helped if less meat was consumed, the report says.

Nitrogen is the most common element in the atmosphere and is harmless. It is the reactive form - mainly produced by human activity - that causes a web of related problems. The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations. It estimates the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe as being £55-£280bn. Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue not just in Europe but also N America, China and India.

take the proper precautions, and there should be no distress caused to the animal (or to the human for someone who doesn't know who to slaughter ) treat the animal right, use a sharp knife, dont slaughter the animal in front of other animals as to not cause them distress...what is the problem?

The problem is that that story is only good for reassuring children wondering how that cute cow ends up between a bun in McDonalds, or even the halal steak on their plate. Of course the animals would be distressed; the only question is the matter of degree.

Why do they care too much if some one slaughters his own animal ?

You do need to remember that there is a very strong animal rights lobby in Europe before assuming this is 'anti-Islamic' (and indeed, presumably also 'anti-Jewish' come to that). Some extremists have even committed terrorist acts, particularly in regard to breeding animals for experiments, or battery poultry farming. Whose animal it is is simply not the issue, any more than it would be if somebody else was mistreating their pet dog or cat.

[MSalman]

^*goes to build mini jungle in back yard - time to get all kinds of pet animals*

[GuestFellow]

Is Islamic Slaughtering Cruel to Animals?

^ Interesting article.

The Dutch should consider banning animal testing too.

[Aadila]

The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.

[Aadila]

The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.

I type something wrong, meant to say animal instead of Allah, very very sorry.

[Trumble]

The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.

Fortunately, increasing numbers all over the world are now realizing that that view has no basis other than ignorance, and extreme arrogance. I don't mean that personally.

We ARE animals, it's thinking that the 'wonderful' homo sapiens that is almost infinitely more destructive of itself, other species and the whole planet than any other species is somehow superior to them that is crazy.

[aadil77]

Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.

That argument is not gonna flow, I have seen some truly 'distressing' videos of animals being stunned repeatedly because the captive bolt could not get them unconcious the first time

[Trumble]

That argument is not gonna flow, I have seen some truly 'distressing' videos of animals being stunned repeatedly because the captive bolt could not get them unconcious the first time

So have I. I'm afraid I must have been distracted when I wrote that as I actually agree with you, so apologies. What I meant to say was,

Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize claims ritual slaughter is the more distressing to animals are dubious, to say the least.

The Dutch should consider banning animal testing too.

Sorry, missed that one before. Actually they have considered it; the matter has been subject to ongoing debate across the EU for many years. Testing of cosmetics on animals has been banned in Europe since 2004, and a further ban regarding ingredients used in manufacturing was introduced in 2009. A general ban has been rejected because the majority, if by no means unanimous, opinion is that medical experiments on animals with the end purpose of providing improved medical treatment for humans is morally justified. Such experiments can only be conducted if a license is obtained when necessary (*), following peer review of the researchers proposals and intended objectives.

As you might deduce from my previous post, I'm one of the dissenters on that issue. Arguments both ways, though, can be presented emotionally, with philosophical vigour, or frequently with both, and I can understand both points of view.

(*) I'm not sure of the exact criteria, but that would be in the case of dogs, monkeys, rabbits, etc. I doubt anyone many would be unduly bothered about experiments on amoebas or fruitflies, although if some arguments are followed to their logical conclusion they might well be....

[Ansariyah]

Holland is the only country in the world that has legalized Drugs & Prostitution and they're 'worried' about how Muslims slaughter their meat? Which btw only 'Muslims' eat. Sick in the head.

[Trumble]

Holland is the only country in the world that has legalized Drugs & Prostitution and they're 'worried' about how Muslims slaughter their meat?

Untrue on both counts, actually. Most countries have legal recreational drugs; the only differences are in which ones. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people worldwide than cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Prostitution is legal in many countries. And both happen, often far more frequently, when they are actually illegal.

None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal. Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?

[Ansariyah]

Untrue on both counts, actually. Most countries have legal recreational drugs; the only differences are in which ones. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people worldwide than cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Prostitution is legal in many countries. And both happen, often far more frequently, when they are actually illegal.

None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal. Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?

Holland is the "mecca" of legalized vices which is laughed at as a depraved society by others with morals, and simultaneously worshipped by the many degenerates who partake in these services and substances from around the world. If another country does same the as holland, it just means they are joining holland on the march to hell.

The halal way of slaughtering animals is painless and quick. Muslims are not allowed to make animals suffer. Actually, beating and trying to stun an animal is more painful. So you are wrong. This law is wrong.

[GuestFellow]

None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal.

Prostitution can be dangerous. You can get sexually transmitted diseases. There have been cases where prostitutes have been killed. As for drugs, you can get addicted to them.

I would say prostitution and drug dealing are more serious than religious animal slaughter.

Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?

No. Some people are not used to seeing animals being slaughtered. I personally do not get sick. It is not as painful as it looks: Source

I do feel sick when I hear about vulnerable young girls becoming prostitutes and sleeping with random men.