More

Religious Animal Slaughter Ban Passes In The Netherlands

Religious Animal Slaughter Ban Netherlands

By TOBY STERLING   06/28/11 06:59 PM ET   AP

AMSTERDAM -- The Dutch parliament has passed a bill banning the slaughter of livestock without stunning it first, removing an exemption that has allowed Jews and Muslims to butcher animals according to their centuries-old dietary rules.

If enacted and enforced, religious groups say observant Jews and Muslims would have to import meat from abroad, stop eating it altogether, or leave the Netherlands.

However, the bill must still pass the Senate, which is unlikely before the summer recess, and the Cabinet said Monday the law may be unenforceable in its current form due in part to ambiguity introduced in a last-minute amendment.

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

In New York, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Tuesday's vote in the lower house, with its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, calling it "a de facto ban on kosher slaughter" that "has repudiated the Netherlands' historic commitment to religious freedom."

"Dutch Jews must not be put to the choice of violating a central tenet of Judaism, foregoing fresh meat, or emigrating. We call upon the Dutch Senate to prevent this action from leading to a clear violation of religious freedom that has a disproportionate impact on the Jewish community," Foxman said in a statement.

Dutch Deputy Secretary of Economic Affairs and Agriculture Henk Blekers said: "The Cabinet will give its judgment over the proposed law after it has been treated by both houses."

The Cabinet will "also look at how it fits with freedom of religion," Blekers said, citing the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawmaker Marianne Thieme of the Party for the Animals – the world's first animal rights party to win seats in a national parliament – welcomed the approval of the bill that she had first introduced in 2008, and said she was now prepared to defend it in the Senate.

"It's a great honor," she said. She has argued that sparing animals needless pain and distress outweighs religious groups' rights to follow slaughter practices "no longer of our time."

But the threat of a possible ban has led to outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups who say it infringes on their right to freedom of religion.

Around 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, mostly immigrants from Turkey and Morocco. The once-strong Jewish community now numbers 40,000-50,000 after more that 70 percent were deported and killed by the Nazis during World War II.

"The Dutch Jewish community is small and the Jewish kosher meat consumption is smaller still, but the impact on our community is deep and large," said a committee of rabbis pleading with parliament not to pass the law in an open letter Tuesday.

"Older Jews are frightened and wonder what the next law will be that limits their religious life. The youth are openly asking whether they still have a future that they can or want to build in the Netherlands."

A solid majority of Dutch voters say they support the ban, and parliament voted for it by a margin of 116 for to 30 against.

Ritual slaughter rules prescribe that animals' throats must be cut swiftly with a razor-sharp knife while they are still conscious, so that they bleed to death quickly.

Support for the ban came from the political left, which sees ritual slaughter as inhumane, and from the anti-immigration right, which sees it as foreign and barbaric.

Only Christian parties were opposed, arguing the ban undermines the country's long tradition of religious tolerance.

Centrist parties were initially divided, with many of them loath to lose the support of Muslim voters. Last week they introduced an amendment that says ritual slaughterers may still be granted licenses – if they can "prove" that it does not cause animals more pain than stunning.

Science is divided as to whether ritual slaughter does cause more suffering.

The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association says it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged."

Other observers, including noted American animal welfare expert Temple Grandin of Colorado State University, have said animals do not appear to show more distress when a ritual slaughter is conducted properly.

Elbakkali Elkhammar, chairman of the Dutch Council of Imams, said that religious groups should be given the benefit of the doubt.

"There are various opinions about this matter, both from Islamic jurisprudence as medical science, that sometimes approve of other protocols for ritual slaughter and sometimes forbid them," he said in a statement.

"The solution is therefore to leave the rules unchanged."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

AMSTERDAM -- The Dutch parliament has passed a bill banning the slaughter of livestock without stunning it first, removing an exemption that has allowed Jews and Muslims to butcher animals according t...
AMSTERDAM -- The Dutch parliament has passed a bill banning the slaughter of livestock without stunning it first, removing an exemption that has allowed Jews and Muslims to butcher animals according t...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 311
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
07:30 PM on 07/01/2011
In the article one talks about religion, jews and muslims...? Why not talk about the animals we kill and their well being? Netherlands is not passing this law because of religion, we are tolerant, we have the most mosks in Europe. And we welcomed 1 million muslims within 60 years in our country (our population is 16 million). So what is tolerant? Dutch are passing the law because of the fact that it is not of this time any more to kill animals this way.

Circumcision of men used to be done without anaesthetics, and nower days it is done with.
..?

Why is there no fuss there. clearly modernisation of the 'religeous rules' is allowed when it regards men? Why can animals not be sedated before being killed? Fact is that this 'swift' kill with one stroke (as described in holy books) is not so swift at all in reality as we all assume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlFXkqtLxI
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
see-ellen2001
04:13 PM on 07/01/2011
Oops..gotta love iPads spell check...lipucky? Should be lucky.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
see-ellen2001
04:10 PM on 07/01/2011
Animal A: lives on small Muslim run farm. Free range, ample living area. Killed on the farm according to halal protocol. Never witnesses another animal death. Animal B: lives in factory farm amongst 2000 others. Lives in squalid conditions, unhealthy living space. Is shipped in metal truck trailer in cramped conditions. Smells death as some animals die en route. At the slaughterhouse, animal is electroshocked along a route where they smell blood, and near the end, witness others' death. They are stunned then killed. So why is animal B considered the 'lipucky' one?
12:56 PM on 07/01/2011
In my estimation, most rights (including an animal's right not to suffer) are more important than "religious rights" to do things that are otherwise abominable. I couldn't care less about Jews and Muslims being allowed to kill animals a certain way just because their "god" supposedly wants them to. Civilized people have higher standards for conduct than "god said so."

However, I was under the impression that kosher/halal slaughter was supposed to be more humane - rapid depressurization causing the animal to lose consciousness almost immediately. It seems that the research on this subject is not conclusive, but it also seems absurd to discuss the "suffering" of an animal that's being killed specifically for the purpose of anonymously becoming someone's dinner. If we're concerned about preventing the suffering of animals, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to harshly criminalize factory farming and slaughterhouses?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barbara Graham
Comin at u from Area 5150
06:08 PM on 07/15/2011
Would you rather have your throat cut and watch yourself bleed out, or would you prefer a little hammer anesthetic first?

I know I would!
11:13 AM on 07/01/2011
I find it especially egregious that this (religious animal slaughter) is done in the name of "religion. " Who gives any of us as human beings the right to take another's life, the most sacred thing living beings possess? It is the height of hubris to believe that just because we consider ourselves superior to all other life on this planet, it gives us the right somehow to take the lives of others at will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
samba2623
I was born hungry
09:34 AM on 07/01/2011
When are they going to pass a law against animal cruelty in slaughterhouses ? I saw some horrific videos and believe me, a throat slashed is not the worst an animal can get.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
see-ellen2001
04:03 PM on 07/01/2011
Samba: you are exactly right. People obsess about the ,manner of killing while ignoring the months of torture going on, especially with veal calves, battery hens (who aren't even put out of their misery in order to serve people). If this government is adamant that not stunning is cruel then they have to ban hunting and fishing. But unless Muslims and Jews rush down in droves to take up hunting and fishing this will not happen.
photo
BluesDogLefty
Liberal Professor
02:46 AM on 07/01/2011
I am all for religious freedom, but this is the 21st century.

Believe in whatever god you want, but can't we leave some of this ridiculous barbarity in the past?
11:19 AM on 07/01/2011
Agreed! There is something very wrong about these "religious" beliefs that involve the forcible act of taking another's life, especially that of an animal's. There is no way for them to object or resist, let alone escape!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barbara Graham
Comin at u from Area 5150
06:10 PM on 07/15/2011
lolwat?

Like we give our beef cattle a clue to escape the laughter house here in the US?
photo
climbing panda
there's a log in my cabin
02:44 PM on 06/30/2011
The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association says it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged."

slaughtering an animal pretty much puts an end to the animals well-being.

the underlying premise here is that animals have more rights than human beings. that is morally wee-todd-did.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matt Mihaly
09:24 PM on 06/30/2011
No it's not. The premise is that the right of people to slaughter animals in a way that causes more pain than necessary for no good reason whatsoever should be superceded by the right of animals to not endure unnecessary suffering.

Of course, as you say, slaughtering an animal certainly and finally puts an end to the animal's well-being, so it's kind of strange logic.
photo
climbing panda
there's a log in my cabin
09:33 PM on 06/30/2011
the religious rights of human beings are being held second to the right of an animal to feel a little less pain while it is being slaughtered. when an animal is butchered to be kosher or halal to drain the blood it does take a few minutes for the animal to die, but it is relatively painless (kinda the reason a person committing suicide might slit their wrists). i'm sure we've all see the hidden cam videos of the bolts being used to "humanely" slaughter livestock and how that doesn't always work "instantly".
photo
MajorKong
If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally
12:58 PM on 06/30/2011
I'm guessing this was aimed at a certain Abrahamic religion and the Jews just got caught in the blast radius.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SusanElizabeth1949
My micro-bio may be empty but my head isn't.
09:32 AM on 07/01/2011
No, it came from the Animal Rights groups. My guess is the European Union Court of Human Rights may have something to say about this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karl Wilder
12:36 PM on 06/30/2011
While I am all for a circumcision ban so that parents are no longer allowed to mutilate male children to appease a god those children may or may not follow. I do not support his law.

If one is going to eat meat the Halal tradition makes for a quick kill. The animal has likely been suffering it's entire life so it matters little how one ends it.

Of course one can always choose not to eat meat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alice Radley
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
12:14 PM on 06/30/2011
This is great news. I'd heard the words kosher and halal, but didn't really know what they meant. When they slaughter animals, they have to slit the throat and bleed the animal to death. It's horrible and not humane.

As a meat eater, I think it's important to speak out against animal cruelty, and speak up for humane, local, sustainable farms. Remember, know your farmer, know your butcher!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
see-ellen2001
04:16 PM on 07/01/2011
Alice, although I am vegetarian, I applaud you for showing responsibility about eating flesh foods. You recognize that burgers don't grow on trees and that some farms are horror shows. Good for you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alice Radley
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
06:51 PM on 07/01/2011
Thank you :)

I think it's important to be aware and conscious of all the things we put into our bodies. You get one life, one body. You have to take care of yourself and the world around you.
photo
Montcalms Revenge
Plaines d' Abraham
11:06 AM on 06/30/2011
What a bunch of tripe!.... mmmmm... tripe...... ;-)
11:10 PM on 06/29/2011
If those in the Netherlands feel they must be loyal to a foreign ideology (religion) and they cannot live in Europe as a European, then they are perfectly free to return to their homelands of origin. Why must Europe change THEIR beliefs in order to satisfy those that are loyal to foreign powers?!
02:18 PM on 06/30/2011
The Netherlands is the side changing their beliefs. Until now they accepted the method prescribed by religious doctrine, but now they wish to alienate minorities which were previously welcomed.

We should be for freedom of religion everywhere, freedom of expression everywhere, and freedom of association everywhere. Why should people be expected to confine themselves to some corner of the world in which their way of life is tolerated? We should be for freedom of diversity everywhere.
11:31 AM on 07/01/2011
Does "freedom" of religion mean we give the "religious" among us freedom to do whatever they want, even killing? They can cloak it in whatever belief system they wish, they can even say that Allah (or God) smiles on their "gift," but the bottom line is that we are taking another's life against their will or without their willingness.

It's not about minorities; this is a human issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matt Mihaly
09:26 PM on 06/30/2011
What, pray tell, does it mean to live "as a European"? Have you visited many countries in Europe? There's no such thing as a "European" way of life. Norway is dramatically different from Romania, is dramatically different from Spain is very different from Greece, etc.
12:58 PM on 06/29/2011
There seems to be a perception of a difference between the meat produced by current slaughtering techniques and ancient slaughtering techniques.

This is a symptom of a common root cause in that dogmatic thinking tends to discard more efficient and productive means of conducting business for prejudiced, ritualized, and barbaric behaviour.

I think that in order for humanity to move forward, we need to apply more reason, logic and critical thinking to our economies, cultures, and most of all, our various religions.
11:07 PM on 06/29/2011
The first thing society must realise is that MOST "religion" is nothing more than ancient political parties disguised as "spirituality". It is the reason they are used so prominantly in politics today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
taoistpunk
because the monks wouldn't have me..
12:52 PM on 06/29/2011
Oops, sorry…

from the picture I thought this was the blog about circumcision.