# Denmark bans halal and kosher slaughter. Justifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724 "2014-02-19T18:54:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/41 "2014-02-20T14:16:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I don’t know about Denmark, but in U.S. the “lifestyles” of most cows are so inhumane that the creatures, if intelligent enough to form such a judgment, might welcome an end to their tedious life, whether in a death that takes 10 seconds, or one that takes 30 seconds. [Here are the regulations from the UK](https://www.gov.uk/animal-welfare), I’d like to see them be tightened up as well as stipulating the most humane method of slaughter be used, regardless of religious implications. > [@](#): > > The legislation seems so silly from an animal-rights perspective, that I wonder if it’s actually intended instead as a jab at non-Christian religions. Silly? Surely slaughter methods fit in perfectly alongside those regulations above. If the current best evidence is correct and there is less suffering using the stunning method then why wouldn’t you mandate that method? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/42 "2014-02-20T14:20:54Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > And painting with a broad brush. Me or **Jackmannii**? If me, I stand by my comments as one only needs to read the full story to understand why it was done. This is not throwing a donkey from a steeple this was a pragmatic sensible decision that protects the welfare of future generations. If \*\* Jackmannii\*\*, then yes…agreed ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/43 "2014-02-20T14:21:40Z")
Jackmannii. ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/44 "2014-02-20T14:45:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So off the top of my head, it seems Norway is over-reacting. One wonders if they are as concerned with the Minke whales they kill, even though it does not appear that whalers are as careful with the process of slaughter. The OP is about Denmark, not Norway. AFAIK, the Danes are not into whaling. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/45 "2014-02-20T16:11:24Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Have you ever seen it performed? I remember seeing a cow and goat killed this way hen a I was a kid. The neck is cut and the animal is kept alive so the heart can pump and the blood is drained. The animals kick, scream and make horrific gurgling noises. It didn’t seem very quick or humane to me. When I was a kid killing chickens was considered one of the fun chores precisely for this reason. I wonder how the law will (or more precisely if) affect people in rural areas. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/46 "2014-02-20T16:13:48Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > The OP is about Denmark, not Norway. AFAIK, the Danes are not into whaling. [Like there is a difference ;).](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ_285hGXW0) ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/47 "2014-02-20T16:18:16Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > No, it’s not it. They bleed to death. With a captive bolt gun the animal is rendered unconscious instantly. You are making an assumption here that the animal “suffers” during the 10 to 30 seconds between proper throat cutting and insensibility. That is not clear to me. I’ve fainted a couple of times in my life, which is fair approximation of death by blood loss to the brain. I don’t recall experiencing any suffering–everything went black and then I, thankfully, woke up. It seems to me that the most important part of the slaughtering process in terms of animal welfare is the lead up to the killing blow, whether captive bolt or ritual incision, not the blow itself. As long as the actual killing is not needlessly tortuous, the animal is dead at the end in any case. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/48 "2014-02-20T16:30:51Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > You are making an assumption here that the animal “suffers” during the 10 to 30 seconds between proper throat cutting and insensibility. No, I’m not. > [@](#): > > That is not clear to me. I’ve fainted a couple of times in my life, which is fair approximation of death by blood loss to the brain. I don’t recall experiencing any suffering–everything went black and then I, thankfully, woke up. You are making an assumption that getting your neck cut and bleeding to death while you kick and gurgle on your own blood would be the same as your experiences with fainting. What I remember seeing looked similar o the way it looks in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/LAQJ-FZo1cA?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque > [@](#): > > It seems to me that the most important part of the slaughtering process in terms of animal welfare is the lead up to the killing blow, whether captive bolt or ritual incision, not the blow itself. One being more important does not negate the other. If I were a prisoner on death row, I’d want to be treated humanely both while imprisoned and an terms of how my death is performed. > [@](#): > > As long as the actual killing is not needlessly tortuous That’s the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/49 "2014-02-20T16:30:56Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > It seems to me that the most important part of the slaughtering process in terms of animal welfare is the lead up to the killing blow, whether captive bolt or ritual incision, not the blow itself. As long as the actual killing is not needlessly tortuous, the animal is dead at the end in any case. All things being equal, i.e. The animal is correctly restrained & handled to minimize panic and discomfort; it still seems like a bolt that instantly destroys the brain is superior to a bleeding out while consciousness persists for sometimes as long as a minute. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/50 "2014-02-20T16:36:35Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > You are making an assumption here that the animal “suffers” during the 10 to 30 seconds between proper throat cutting and insensibility. But you’d agree that stunning, _then_ throat cutting gives a greater guarantee that they don’t suffer? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/51 "2014-02-20T16:45:41Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Silly? … If the current best evidence is correct and there is less suffering using the stunning method then why wouldn’t you mandate that method? Set priorities. I’ll assume you’ll stipulate that pigs are not a “lower” life form than cows. [Read a little about the life-style enjoyed by pigs](http://www.aact.org.au/pig_industry.htm). It is baffling that people focused on humane treatment of food animals would worry about a few seconds of slaughter delay, while pigs experience life-long torture. Set priorities. Emotionally I’d like to side with animal-rights. It’s hard when the priorities are laughable. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/52 "2014-02-20T16:53:52Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > All things being equal, i.e. The animal is correctly restrained & handled to minimize panic and discomfort; it still seems like a bolt that instantly destroys the brain is superior to a bleeding out while consciousness persists for sometimes as long as a minute. “Superior” is a moral value-judgment in this case. You’re assuming that the animal is experiencing suffering due to pain and/or awareness of its impending death, and that this suffering, if present, is so large as to outweigh the interests of the people who have particular religious requirements on the manner of slaughter. I understand that many people place zero (or negative) value on anything associated with religion, and therefore _any_ non-zero suffering by the animal instantly outweighs any religious interests. But that’s an assumption that should be stated explicitly in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/53 "2014-02-20T17:03:31Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > “Superior” is a moral value-judgment in this case. You’re assuming that the animal is experiencing suffering due to pain and/or awareness of its impending death Read what you quoted him on again. He didn’t make any assumptions. > [@](#): > > and that this suffering, if present, is so large as to outweigh the interests of the people who have particular religious requirements on the manner of slaughter. What exactly is that religious requirement? What is said in the Qur’an and/or Hadith that forbids rendering an animal unconscious before slaughtering it? How much pain is necessary to outweigh appeasing others with religious requirements? ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/54 "2014-02-20T17:13:19Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But you’d agree that stunning, _then_ throat cutting gives a greater guarantee that they don’t suffer? Suppose I grant that. So what? _Halal_ slaughter may permit stun-then-cut, but I don’t think kosher slaughter does–kosher animals, IIRC, must be uninjured and disease-free at time of slaughter. Even if the throat cutting causes some non-zero amount of suffering, which has not been (and probably cannot be) objectively proven, that amount of suffering must be weighed against the interests of the Jews and Muslims who require particular methods of slaughter. That interest-balancing is not possible to do completely objectively (though some economist will undoubtedly try). But, as others have pointed out, this seems like the tiniest piece of the livestock-animal-suffering problem, and has the side-effect of stigmatizing outsider groups of _people_ in the name of _animal_ welfare. One is tempted to make a decidedly not Jewish/Muslim reference to the mote in god’s eye. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/55 "2014-02-20T17:23:22Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Set priorities. > > I’ll assume you’ll stipulate that pigs are not a “lower” life form than cows. [Read a little about the life-style enjoyed by pigs](http://www.aact.org.au/pig_industry.htm). It is baffling that people focused on humane treatment of food animals would worry about a few seconds of slaughter delay, while pigs experience life-long torture. > > Set priorities. Emotionally I’d like to side with animal-rights. It’s hard when the priorities are laughable. Set priorities? Do you think animal welfare groups or governments are silent on factory farming? OK then, let’s assume that all of us concerned with animal welfare want to see factory farming outlawed and a return to hoppity-skippity lambs and daisy in a straw hat with a ribbon on it. I agree…yes…that is where the biggest push should be because that is where the most harm is caused. I’m not sure you’ll get any complaints about that. Excellent, let’s crack on with it. I expect it will take some time to dismantle the current system and legislate and regulate our way to a better future. You are looking 10-25 years I would suggest. Now then, I ask myself, in the meantime are there any actions we can take that are quick and easy? that requires no additional infrastructure? no additional cost? I suspect there are many and on current evidence a change to the method of ritual slaughter is one of them. I see no good reason no to do it. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/56 "2014-02-20T17:32:44Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Read what you quoted him on again. He didn’t make any assumptions. There are definitely assumptions being made, even if unstated. In order to say one method is “superior” to another based on reduction in suffering (and that’s nominally what this is all about), one must assume that the cut-and-bleed-out method of slaughter is causing some non-zero amount of suffering to the animal. I think the quoted post also assumes that the animal must be conscious of impending death and feeling fear and pain during the process of bleeding out. Has this been established objectively? On the other hand, perhaps the assumption is that the suffering is of the human witnesses? > [@](#): > > What exactly is that religious requirement? What is said in the Qur’an and/or Hadith that forbids rendering an animal unconscious before slaughtering it? How much pain is necessary to outweigh appeasing others with religious requirements? I am not familiar with _halal_ slaughter requirements, other than knowing that kosher slaughter meets those requirements for Muslims who cannot access explicitly _halal_ meat. The converse is not the case. Kosher slaughter requirements are Talmudic/Rabbinic, and a fair summary is available at the Temple Grandin site linked above. I don’t think it permits stunning first. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/57 "2014-02-20T17:34:18Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > I understand that many people place zero (or negative) value on anything associated with religion, and therefore _any_ non-zero suffering by the animal instantly outweighs any religious interests. But that’s an assumption that should be stated explicitly in this discussion. I was quite clear where I stand in a previous post > [@](#): > > Religion should have no part in the decision, or at least no more say than any other viewpoint, political or personal. Halal rituals with captive bolt stunning is acceptable to other Jews and Muslims so it obviously isn’t completely out of the question. > > If people don’t like it then tough. Seriously, I don’t care what thoughts you hold in your head nor what you choose to do for yourself and to yourself, none of my business. At the point it affects other people or creatures then your religious rights stop and the democratic process takes over. You say in a later post > [@](#): > > that amount of suffering must be weighed against the interests of the Jews and Muslims who require particular methods of slaughter. Why? You state this as if it is objectively true and that a religious requirement for slaughter trumps animal welfare concerns. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/58 "2014-02-20T17:54:52Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > There are definitely assumptions being made, even if unstated. No. > [@](#): > > In order to say one method is “superior” to another based on reduction in suffering (and that’s nominally what this is all about), one must assume that the cut-and-bleed-out method of slaughter is causing some non-zero amount of suffering to the animal. No. One must “assume” that being rendered unconscious instantly and then having one’s neck cut is superior then having one’s neck cut and being left to bleed to death while kicking, screaming and gurgling on his own blood because the latter is more likely to cause suffering. One can not say for sure what either experience is like, but we look at the evidence and make pretty good evaluations that I’d call more than making assumptions. > [@](#): > > I think the quoted post also assumes that the animal must be conscious of impending death and feeling fear and pain during the process of bleeding out. Has this been established objectively? On the other hand, perhaps the assumption is that the suffering is of the human witnesses? Has it been established objectively that a cat being kicked across the room feels pain? If not, I’m going to err on the side of caution and take appropriate action if I see it happen. If you were going to be executed in one of the two ways discussed, which would you think would be less painful? Never mind, you already answered. You’ve concluded that getting your neck cut and bleeding to death is a fair comparison to the painlessness you’ve experienced when fainting. > [@](#): > > I am not familiar with _halal_ slaughter requirements, other than knowing that kosher slaughter meets those requirements for Muslims who cannot access explicitly _halal_ meat. Nope. [http://www.isaiowa.org/content/Halal-Information/Halal-Education/Why-Kosher-is-not-Halal.aspx](http://www.isaiowa.org/content/Halal-Information/Halal-Education/Why-Kosher-is-not-Halal.aspx) > [@](#): > > The converse is not the case. Then they need to make changes when technology allows for animals to be rendered unconscious instantly before slaughter. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/59 "2014-02-20T17:57:50Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Why? You state this as if it is objectively true and that a religious requirement for slaughter trumps animal welfare concerns. Why must we balance animal welfare interests with human interests? Because that’s what we always do. We humans have an interest in eating meat (as a group; individuals may differ). We eat meat for a lot of reasons. For one, it’s nutritious. That’s objectively true, but there’s nothing in meat that is exclusive to it. We can substitute vegetable sources of nutrition that are just as good. We don’t all do that for reasons that are both rational and irrational: perhaps it’s more time-consuming and difficult to get a balanced vegan diet, or maybe we just like the taste so much we don’t want to give it up. It is not “objectively true that a religious requirement for slaughter trumps animal welfare”. But it is also not objectively true that this particular method of slaughter impacts animal welfare negatively. Nor even if it does that the banning of it increases animal welfare more than it marginalizes minority communities. If we’re raising and killing animals for food, we’ve already said that human interests trump animal welfare in some circumstances. Now you’re arguing that some human interests are morally inferior and should not be considered at all. That may be so, but I’m not sure this particular human interest causes so much reduction in animal welfare that it sinks to that level of moral inferiority. Your mileage obviously varies. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724/60 "2014-02-20T18:44:52Z")
The impression I get is that it is always easy for a majority to find objective-appearing reasons to ban the practices of a minority - particularly where that minority is otherwise disfavored. Granted, this alleged concern for animal welfare does appear rather thin, even by the undiscriminating standards of justification such measures are usually subjected to by majorities. The headscarf ban in France had more legitimacy to it, which isn’t saying much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-justifiable/681724.md?page=4)