Last week the European Commission hosted a conference on freedom of religion with regards to ritual slaughter which many members of the MJLC attended. As ritual slaughter is a hotly debated topic and a matter of the utmost importance to practicing Muslims and Jews, I spoke with MJLC board members Rabbi Michael Schudrich, the Chief Rabbi of Poland, and Imam Yahya Pallavicini, Vice President of CO.RE.IS (The Islamic Religious Community of Italy) about the nature of laws restricting Kosher and Halal slaughter, the importance of dietary law to both faiths, animal welfare, and future steps to protect freedom of religion in Europe.
History of bans on ritual slaughter and political motivations behind them
In the past decade there has been a rapid proliferation of laws in European countries which ban or severely restrict the practice of ritual slaughter. One such law, passed in Belgium in 2017, was recently upheld by the EU Court of Justice setting a precedent that will allow similar laws all over Europe.
While these restrictions may appear to be a modern phenomenon driven by a concern for animal welfare, bans on ritual slaughter are by no means a recent trend and were also typically justified by concern for the wellbeing of animals.
Switzerland was the first country in Europe to pass a ban on ritual slaughter in 1893 shortly after the invent of stunning as a method of slaughter with proponents of the law arguing that Kosher slaughter (shechita) was inhumane. Stunned slaughter at the time was performed by striking the animal in the head with a hammer prior to its slaughter. The next law on animal rights in Switzerland was passed nearly one hundred years later in 1978 and battery farming was permitted until 1992.
Other countries in Europe followed suit with Norway banning ritual slaughter in 1929, Germany banning it in 1933 as one of the first laws passed after Hitler came to power, and similar bans were being debated by the Polish Sejm just months before the German invasion.
While some of the proponents of these laws may have been genuinely concerned for animal welfare antisemitism was a strong driving force behind their passage. The purpose of these laws for their antisemitic proponents was to make life as difficult as possible for their Jewish countrymen as methods of stunning both then and now damage the body of the animal prior to its slaughter which is forbidden by both Muslim and Jewish dietary law.
From a perspective of marginalizing Jews these laws were quite effective, when asked about the practical effects of banning Kosher slaughter Rabbi Schudrich responded, “If there were no Kosher meat available then many Jews would start leaving the country, and you would see the country’s Jewish population shrink.”
Rabbi Michael Schudrich
Much like laws passed almost a century ago modern legislation seeking to ban or restrict ritual slaughter is supported by a bizarre coalition of well-meaning animal rights activists and ill-intentioned religious bigots, the key difference being that these modern religious bigots are targeting Muslims as well.
When asked about the motivations behind laws banning religious slaughter Rabbi Schudrich responded, “Movements to ban ritual slaughter both historically and today have nothing to do with animal welfare but overwhelmingly have to do with limiting the Muslim and Jewish population. In other words, if we don’t allow shechita and Halal slaughter then we’ll have fewer Jews and fewer Muslims. Today there are animal welfare people that are misinformed and believe that religious slaughter is unnecessarily cruel and causes pain to the animal while the goal of shechita is to minimize the pain inflicted upon the animal.”
Imam Pallavicini agreed with this sentiment stating, “Let us be very careful about the hidden agenda of some individuals and politicians who propose banning a long-standing religious right and practice in Europe just to empower anti-religious, antisemitic, and anti-Muslim sentiments.”
Animal welfare and religious freedom
Imam Pallavicini also emphasised that the argument should not be between animal welfare and religious freedom “When religious slaughter is practiced according to the correct principles and methodology taught by the Rabbis and Imams who have regularly received training and authorization it implements a very strict and natural concern for animal welfare. The reference in the holy Qur’an to animals such as the bee, the ant, the elephant, the cow, and the spider is an example of respect for animals according to Islamic religious teachings. Of course, this has nothing to do with the bad behaviour of a few Muslims who pretend to be experts in slaughtering and have no education but only arrogance to perform a “ritual slaughter” that contradicts religious sensitivity and respect for the laws and rules of European societies.”
Imam Yahya Pallavicini
Rabbi Schudrich agrees that religious slaughter is humane and argues that it is even more humane than stunned slaughter “There have been studies done by academic institutions about stunned slaughter that found that 15-20% of the time the stunning fails and the animal experiences horrible pain, while shechita, when done correctly, never fails and if done incorrectly, which is a rare occurrence, would not be kosher. Another thing that most do not realize is that when one is doing the shechita they believe that they are fulfilling a commandment from G-d and take the entire process very seriously whereas a worker performing stunning is doing what his boss told him to do which is usually done well but the personal investment in the success of the procedure is on a completely different level.” Rabbi Schudrich also emphasised that when taking the suffering of the animal into account it is insufficient to only focus on the slaughter of the animal “Another issue I see is that people are focused on the last 30-60 seconds of the life of the animal and not the conditions the animal experiences during its life. We should be concerned about modern practices such as force-feeding and crowding animals into cramped spaces for most of their lives.”
Dialogue and steps for the future
Both Imam Pallavicini and Rabbi Schudrich are committed to humane ritual slaughter and are grateful to the European Commission for engaging in dialogue on this matter and carefully listening to arguments made by a variety of Muslim and Jewish religious leaders.
Rabbi Schudrich stated “I am very grateful to the EU Commission. They took the step; this is something we need to talk about let’s sit down and talk about it without heavy rhetoric but rather concretely about what can be done to make the situation better.” When asked about the next steps he said “I believe that if we keep working together and improving education on this topic things will improve. Some people approach it and say, “let’s find a compromise” I say let’s do 100% for animal welfare and let’s do 100% for Jewish law, we don’t have to compromise we can find a solution that is 100% acceptable for both sides.”
Imam Pallavicini was very much in agreement stating “The correct approach on this topic of religious slaughtering in Europe should not be to ban religious rights and freedom but rather to develop a serious consultation with reliable Rabbis and Imams and experts on this topic, in order to establish an inter-institutional, multi-disciplinary, inter-religious coordination and shared responsibility for the training and management of this religious requirement for Jews and Muslims in Europe. We need dialogue and cooperation between local authorities, veterinarians, slaughterhouses, and Jewish and Muslim experts regularly authorized by their religious organizations. This coordination will avoid any misleading practices and develop a positive synergy between secular Institutions and religious pluralism. It will also avoid any discrimination for religious minorities through the artificial pretext of an exclusive standardization of rules and the ideological abuse of animal welfare.”
While it is impossible to say with certainty whether laws banning or restricting religious slaughter will be repealed or continue to proliferate it is of vital importance to see these laws for what they are, a targeted attack on religious minorities which hides behind the guise of concern for animal welfare. If the public can be made aware of the compatibility between ritual slaughter and animal welfare, then this excuse will be rendered powerless and expose these laws for what they truly are.