Denmark bans halal and kosher slaughter. Justifiable?

[Tom_Tildrum]

@clairobscur

You just made up this “right to freedom from discrimination”, no? Anyway, to what would it apply besides religion? I’m not going to accept a right that is granted solely to believers. That would not be a right, but a priviledge.

The right would apply to everyone, since everyone would have the right to choose the method of animal slaughter that he or she considers to be morally correct. If one does not believe in kosher or halal slaughter, then one need not be compelled to buy meat from an animal slaughtered that way, but similarly, one opposed to kosher or halal slaughter would not be privileged to impose his or her value judgments upon those who believe to the contrary.

[Chen019]

@aldiboronti

Here’s the story.

This is a difficult one for me. I hate cruelty to animals but is this form of slaughter really that cruel? And the statement by the Minister for Agriculture and Food bothers me, ie animal rights come before religion. Religion is a human right so the statement is equivalent to saying animal rights come before human rights. That’s wrong and I think Denmark has made the wrong choice here.

Animals don’t get much choice in the matter.

As humans we can make choices. It seems reasonable that as the ones doing the killing we at least make our practices cause the least amount of suffering to innocent creatures.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Steken

I live in Denmark. Whether the law itself is justifiable or not, I can’t really say, but there is no question that the reason it was passed was 1% “poor animals,” and 99% “fuck the Muslims.” Everybody here - and I mean everybody - knows this.

Except, perhaps, the two guys collecting signatures for one of the protests against the law:

“Yet neither Schwarz nor Essabar, whose organization collected nearly 20,000 signatures protesting the new law, believe that anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic sentiments are the true motive for the reform. Rather, they point to a rejection of religion in general.”

[Steophan]

@Ibn_Warraq

Beyond that, you seem to be of the opinion that people choose their religion.

They may not choose their religion (although that’s arguable), but they choose their actions, and immoral or evil actions are still immoral or evil done in the name of religion. No-one should get a pass on any action because of religion, and that includes torturing animals.

If anyone chooses to starve because their food hasn’t been sufficiently tortured, good riddance.

[Chief_Pedant]

@AK84

:rolleyes: oh puhleez. That’s what you are basing your estimation on? Whether it looks aesthetically pleasing or not? It is not a case that the “throat is sliced” as you say. The carotid artery and jugular veins are severed. There is a massive loss of blood pressure and unconsciousness with a sexton or so. Death within a minute or so. There is no pain because the organ that perceives pain is being starved of oxygen.

I do not recall making a case based on aesthetics, pleasing or not. I am unable to parse out the difference between “sliced” and “severed.”

The duration and extent of sensation begin at the point of getting trussed up and end with the loss of consciousness. I am not familiar with the time unit of “sexton” but I would say the total duration of a typical halal killing is on the order of several minutes, and the degree of apparent terror (and struggling) on the part of animal is profound.

Choking on aspirated fluids is actually quite an anxiety-provoking event (which is why waterboarding is so strenuous psychologically).

In any case, this idea that it’s an instantaneous or peaceful-albeit-grotesque death is quite inaccurate.

Having witnessed quite a number–it’s how we used to slaughter our meat–it’s also my personal experience that what happens in practice is not nearly as neat, clean or quick as a textual explanation of the theoretical fastest dispatch.

[sciurophobic]

If the argument is that a religious group should do whatever it wants I’d side with the Danish government. But when the religion’s rules are designed specifically to prevent the problem with which they claim to be concerned (i.e., unnecessary cruelty to slaughtered livestock) then without some clear scientific evidence I have to put the government’s motives into question.

[Malthus]

@bengangmo

That doesn’t seem very fair when applied to this particular argument. In New Zealand, a largely “religion free” country, they use stun then cut for a reason. It’s because objectively they find it the fastest, most humane, most efficient method.

Any departure from said method is an accommodation - whether that be for reasons of conscience, religion or other belief.

As mentioned above, I also understand that stun / cut is acceptable to Halal - where the two primary concerns are disease free and the prayer.

Personally I don’t think that “traditional” slaughter is cruel enough to trouble me personally - and should a boutique abattoir want to do it this way I wouldn’t have a particular problem. (assuming all other health and cleanliness standards were met)

Having said that - we don’t do things the same way today as they were done 2000 years ago - things change and evolve for a reason - it’s because we find better ways of doing them.

I don’t believe that religion should get a pass from this - instead, we look at how we can change and adapt current needs with traditional demand - stun then cut seems to be a pretty good compromise that keeps everyone happy. I don’t think this is an imposition on a religion to expect them to “accept” this.

Although I am not religious - so my opinion on the matter doesn’t matter so much.

People who actually live in Denmark are saying in this very thread that the real motive for this move is anti-Muslim animus, with a thin gloss of animal-rights window-dressing. How is it “unfair” to note this, if may in fact be true?

[Chief_Pedant]

@Malthus

People who actually live in Denmark are saying in this very thread that the real motive for this move is anti-Muslim animus, with a thin gloss of animal-rights window-dressing. How is it “unfair” to note this, if may in fact be true?

Do they have some support for the claim? As I mentioned above, even the two gathering signatures for a petition against the law do not agree with the “anti-Muslim” accusation…

[Malthus]

@Chief_Pedant

Do they have some support for the claim? As I mentioned above, even the two gathering signatures for a petition against the law do not agree with the “anti-Muslim” accusation…

Apparently, recent events have caused one of them to question that stance:

Giraffe-Killing Danes Anger Jews and Muslims With New Animal Cruelty Law

Even Essabar, who believes that Danes are genuinely tolerant, is beginning to wonder about the impression his country is creating. “We slaughtered a giraffe in a zoo. Our military shoots pigs for practice. So do we really care so much about animal welfare? Something is not as it should be.”

Interestingly, the ban has no practical effect - as no halal or kosher slaughterhouses exist in Denmark. So why, exactly, are the so fussed about it? Because it is a nice symbolic gesture. But symbolic of what?

Interestingly, the same animal-welfare interests are not present in industries that actually exist in Denmark.

From the same article:

In fact, no animals have actually been ritually slaughtered in Denmark in a decade, and Jews and Muslims in Denmark are accustomed to getting their kosher and halal meat from abroad. That fact, say some, makes the legislation all the more questionable. “From the Jewish point of view, there are no practical effects to this law,” says Finn Schwarz, president of the Jewish Community of Denmark. “So you have to wonder why regulate something that is not happening?”

Benyones Essabar, chairman of the organization Danish Halal, has questions too. He notes that the proposal emerged in the wake of a controversy last summer provoked by the discovery that a Copenhagen hospital was, out of deference to Muslims, serving halal meat to all its patients regardless of their religion. And he points out that Danish Muslims have been actively trying in the past few years to find both farmers and a slaughterhouse that could supply the community locally. “While we are working on it,” he says, “The government has closed the only door.” Like Schwarz, he points out that in other critical areas of animal welfare such as hunting, pig production (Denmark is one of the biggest producers of pork in Europe) and mink farming (ditto), the government has taken no action.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Steophan

They may not choose their religion (although that’s arguable), but they choose their actions, and immoral or evil actions are still immoral or evil done in the name of religion. No-one should get a pass on any action because of religion, and that includes torturing animals.

If anyone chooses to starve because their food hasn’t been sufficiently tortured, good riddance.

I obviously eat plenty of food that’s Haram and don’t seek out food that’s Halal or Kosher(many Muslims go for kosher food which is easier to find).

However neither Kosher nor Halal traditions developed for the purpose of “torturing” the animal.

In fact just the opposite. The point of having all the arteries in the neck sliced open at once is to kill the animal instantly. As for the reason the animals aren’t normally stunned in either kosher or halal slaughterhouses it’s because it was thought that killing an unconscious animal was immoral to the animal.

I’m glad that apparently some Muslims in New Zealand have found a way around it, though I’m not surprised since Islam is a fairly practical religion.

Finally, as AK pointed out, it’s by no means clear that either Halal or Kosher slaughter methods are worse for the animals involved than normal slaughter methods. When done properly(hence the importance of the single stroke) the animal loses consciousness almost instantaneously and can’t feel pain because the organ that registers pain is starved of oxygen.

Edit: I forgot to ask, do you eat meat? If so, how do you know that it suffered less than the animals served in kosher and halal restaurants?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Malthus

People who actually live in Denmark are saying in this very thread that the real motive for this move is anti-Muslim animus, with a thin gloss of animal-rights window-dressing. How is it “unfair” to note this, if may in fact be true?

Agreed, and the closest we’ve heard to a rebuttal is “no, it’s not about hatred of Muslims, it’s about hatred of all religions”.
I’m reminded of a white supremacist going “no, we don’t hate black people because they’re black, we hate them because they’re not white. We hate all mud people.”