Ritual Slaughter : Legal and Theological Inconsistencies

When speaking about ritual slaughter, we should take into consideration the respect of both specific cultural-religious differences and animal welfare. Although disapproving of a particular cultural custom risks discrimination, potentially, it is equally dangerous to approve all other cultural practices in the name of tolerance, without considering justice. But in dealing with this particular issue, it is paradoxical to promote a particular kind of slaughter as “more merciful” (read: “more just”) and in accord with animal welfare. Considering a way to slaughter fitted with animal welfare could only descend from a distorted idea of welfare that permeates the true basis of the European legislation. In the light of these contradictions and aware of different interests that are at play, both humans and animals, in this presentation we will try to delineate the paradoxes and contradictions in the actual European legislation about slaughter and ritual slaughter, moving from a legal and theologian point of view. Current slaughter methods can be defined as either conventional or in accordance with religious practices (ritual slaughter). Ritual slaughter is performed without previous stunning. This makes it a major current animal welfare issue. There are principally two types of religious slaughter: the Muslim method (halal meat) and Shechita (kosher meat for Jewish consumers). Within both Muslim and Jewish communities there are different interpretations of the religious laws on slaughter. Leaders of some liberal branches of both the faiths are prepared to interpret their religious law in the light of modern customs and knowledge, but other leaders consider stunning before slaughtering an inacceptable offence against the holy books and religious dogmas. European states’ legal systems protect ritual slaughter as a component of the right of religious freedom. So human rights take precedence over animal welfare. Relevant EU legislation deals with animal welfare during slaughtering but allows derogations, so that member states may authorize religious slaughter without prestunning in their own territory. When cultural rights are embodied in the human rights legislation, and in the present context, this could complicate interpretation of the scope of the dispensations. In Europe, animal welfare is acknowledged as a Community value. But the critical prohibitions on beating and killing animals is often reduced with “unavoidably” and “needlessly”. These terms are difficult to define. Besides, when the human interests overcome that of the animals, pain and suffering might lawfully occur. The different interpretations of the religious laws produce confusion about religious requirements. The EU regulatory frameworks are based upon conflicting principles: animal welfare considerations vs. human rights issue. So there is a need for reviewing religious requirements as well as the pertinent legislation, in order to improve the welfare of all the animals at the time of slaughter. From a theological perspective, it will be argued that, within the three abrahamic religions, animals are considered far more worthy compared to the way they are conceptualized within our secular western society. In the first case they are subjects, who relate directly with god; in the second case, they are “sentient” beings but their value is evaluated only in relations to humans profits. By the consideration of some notable passages from these traditions it will emerge how the sacrificial perspective is not the prominent way to look at animals but primarily they are suggested as god’ creatures, sentient beings and exempla of a virtuous life. Furthermore it will emerge how ritual slaughter has to be understood as a process which includes different moments and not just as a mere act of slaughtering. In this sense this paper questions if it is possible to assess that the prestunning procedure is more just then the ritual one.