Denmark has decided that responsibility to animal welfare trumps whatever practices individuals feel they should follow according to their interpretation of their God’s teachings. As a secular country, that tells me that that Denmark’s priorities are in a good place.
BTW, why is religion is a human right? That’s perhaps a question for another thread.
An abstract from one of the studies that were referenced in the Grandin link QuickSilver provided:
The same is true with Halal.
Thousands of years of religious warfare and tyranny. Declaring it a right and making people “agree to disagree” via force of law keeps down the bloodshed.
What exactly do you claim to have seen? You mention a pig. No kosher or halaal slaughterer is going to kill a pig.
But the suggestion of many in this thread is that that animal welfare rationale is fictional, and that Denmark is in fact acting out of bigotry.
Why do animals have rights? Why should the rights of Jews be subject to question but the rights of animals be axiomatic? Or rather, why should those humans who assign moral value to narrow differences in the method by which an animal is slaughtered have their views prioritized over those humans who assign moral value to their religious beliefs?
If Denmark were really so concerned with animal welfare they would ban animal slaughter altogether. No one has supplied any evidence that kosher/halal slaughter is any less humane than factory slaughter. My suspicion is that this is based on hassling minority religions more than sticking up for animals.
Denmark is well-known for its practice of intensive agriculture techniques including, e.g, battery production of chicken-meat and eggs. That seems to me to involve much more suffering - and prolonged suffering - than any slaughtering method. That being so, if the Danes are not banning techniques of that kind, then their claims to motivated by concerns about animal welfare in banning kosher and halal slaughter techniques have to be viewed with great scepticism.
I would say that in AUS, objections to halal and kosher slaughter are part of a more general objection to slaughter, and that the local Animal Welfare activists would be grateful for any opportunity to ban any small fraction of the local slaughter trade, and that they take every opportunity to do so.
So I certainly would not say that local objects to halal and kosher slaughter here are in any effective way related to prejudice against Moslem or Jewish culture or religion. It’s just the activists pressing to find any small niche where they can apply pressure and move the status along. Most of the small slaughterhouses have been shut down, and it’s illegal to slaughter for sale except in the certified slaughterhouses. This suits big business as well as the activists.
In this context, what’s special about halal and kosher is that they’ve made a special claim in order to fight back against what’s happened to most of the other specialist slaughterhouse operations.
Apart from that, the world at large seems to really hate convulsions. I don’t know why: people have convulsions all the time, the experience for humans is well documented, but whenever the subject comes up, convulsions are equated with suffering.
Here is Melbourne, they closed down the local animal-welfare humane-killing by depressurisation operation in the early 70’s because the animals were seen to have convulsions. As the local reporter reported “nothing can tell me they weren’t suffering”. This in spite of the fact that the method was based on the experience of humans subject to de-pressurisation, and she could have asked an old air-man what it felt like.
That had nothing to do with religous considerations. I don’t think religous considerations would have made the public more rabid, and I don’t think religous considerations could have saved it. It’s just a fact that the public hates seeing animals or people have convulsions.
I worked in an abattoir and have seen the ideal captive bolt method first hand on many occasions.
It is instant and painless. the animals (even large cattle) drop immediately and the brain is destroyed completely within seconds by means of a flexible probe then they are bled out.
The above takes seconds and the cleanliness and speed of the death being a matter of pride to the slaughterman (and a matter of self preservation as a thrashing half-dead, half-ton beast is not something you need in your day)
If we are going to kill animals for food at all (and we are) then it is perfectly right to make an objective assessment of which method causes least distress. The same goes for factory farming, there should be legally mandated standards which minimise suffering (and there are)
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.
The religious communities should work within the democratic process to put their case. If it is strong enough then they’ll win. If not, stop whinging.
I’m a bit perplexed about this story. In New Zealand sheep meat is a huge industry and we have had halal butchers in our freezing works (abattoirs) since the mid 70s. I have watched the sticking pens - not pleasant but industrial and quick. Also extremely clean.
Sheep are stunned, prayed over briefly, then the carotid artery is cut lengthwise. The animal bleeds out as it moves on, suspended on the chain.
I take no pleasure from the death of any animal but this process seems humane.
Exactly. That seems to fulfill the needs of NZ Muslims and Jews *and *animal welfare campaigners. The rituals are not the problem, do what the heck you want when the animal is brain-dead, it is the need for them to be stunned which is the sticking point in some religious communities.
I’ve seen a lot of halal slaughters. They never struck me as particularly cruel. The throat is cut and that’s pretty much it.
I find it odd that people seem extremely concerned about the moment of death, and not particularly concerned about the conditions in the months and years leading to death. If we were interested in animal welfare, rather than taking jabs at religion, that would seem more important.
I don’t believe I made any claims that the these events were done as part of a ritualistic slaughter process. These were farmers in the countryside. I suppose you can make the assumption that they were incompetent or disinterested in the quick or painless death of their animal. I was too young and it was too long ago to judge fairly. It seemed like they knew exactly what they were doing and it was not their first time given how they went about it, with a matter of fact grim efficiency (again, from my point of view).
I wasn’t sure (and admitedly not very informed) which was the more humane method of slaughter. Having read about it, I’m leaning on the side of quick and more humane killing that destroys the brain of the animal immediately. While there are claims and evidence that animals don’t suffer very much from ritualized killing techniques when done correctly, the “when done correctly” is just too uncertain of a qualifier for me.
I still can’t speculate intelligently about the motives of Denmark’s decision. It certainly leaves very frew options to those whose religious practices prevent them from eating non-kosher/non-halal meat. If the main objective of ritualistic slaughter is to minimize the suffering of the animal, perhaps religious communities need to accept that modern methods of killing animals achieve that goal more effectively and humanely than a blade across the throat.
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. (I’ve read that a main slaughterhouse torture for cows is waiting in queue after they’ve figured out what’s happening.) To focus on that possible 20-second difference, especially since the evidence is unclear and it could go either way, strikes me as bizarrely stupid. It’s the kind of lame-brained reasoning that gives fodder to right-wingers who think “liberals” aren’t very smart.
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.
I think most people are concerned about that as well. Certainly there is more awareness about it, which will lead to change, I hope. Change takes time.
But the OP is about the methods of slaughter, not living conditions.
The Danes are known for being very conscientious about animal welfare.
I have. Unless by “evidence” you mean “absolute proof.”
No, it’s not it. They bleed to death. With a captive bolt gun the animal is rendered unconscious instantly.
It’s not “the moment of death” people are concerned about. It seems odd to me that you’ve come to this conclusion. Where are you getting the idea that people “extremely” concerned about slaughter being inhumane aren’t particularly concerned about the conditions in the months and years leading to death?
You said you saw “it” performed. The “it” you quoted me on referred back to halal slaughter. Just pointing that out- I realize it was not done on purpose.
You are being wilfully ignorant here.
The reasons for that were very clearly about animal welfare. In a world of finite resources you need to spend those resources on a healthy and genetically diverse breeding population. They didn’t kill it for a laugh or through negligence.
And painting with a broad brush.