January 13, 2019

"With the start of the new year, Belgium became the latest European country to ban traditional Jewish and Muslim animal slaughtering practices."

"The move was applauded by animal rights activists but condemned by religious leaders who see the ban as a threat to their communities. At issue is whether to allow religious exemptions to European Union rules that state animals must be knocked out before they are slaughtered, which supporters say is more humane. The United States has similar regulations, but allows for religious exemptions.... Religious leaders say minimizing an animal’s pain has always been central to their traditions, and a ritual slaughter — carried out with a sharp blade to the neck — should be quick and almost painless. When they are stunned, animals are rendered unconscious through blunt force, electric shocks, gassing or a steel bolt that penetrates an animal’s skull. Stunning has been used for decades and
'promotes animal welfare and meat quality,' according to the North American Meat Institute, a trade group that represents 95 percent of American red-meat producers.... Beyond the concern for animals, Jewish and Muslim leaders see darker motivations behind the effort to outlaw the practices. The historical precedents are grim. The Nazis also cited cruelty to animals when they prohibited slaughter without stunning in 1933."

From "Is Stunning an Animal Before Slaughter More Humane? Some Religious Leaders Say No" (NYT).

30 comments:

Ralph L said...

The Nazis also used toilets, so we'd better all run to the woods instead.

rhhardin said...

Hermann Goering was the head of the Tierschutzverein, the human society.

Fernandinande said...

You know who else killed with a sharp blade to the neck?

That's right, commies!

rhhardin said...

humane society

MayBee said...

I was surprised to hear that the US hasn't had any problems allowing Halal butchering, but only because you must be Muslim to be a Halal butcher. That seems like that rubs up against employment laws.

sykes.1 said...

Next is circumcision of boys, except, of course, for female genital mutilation.

Fernandinande said...

The historical precedents are grim. The Nazis also cited health issues in their anti-smoking campaigns*, run by the same guy who was in charge or killing the 'tards.

*Great book, BTW.

Fernandinande said...

The historical precedents are grim. Just like the NYT, the Nazis counted on the the stupidity of their readers.

Fernandinande said...

The historical precedents are grim. The Nazis also invented the modern form of "affirmative action" to restrict those people who made others look bad by being too successful.

rhhardin said...

The lesson is that evil is not so easy to spot as popular culture has you believe.

Omaha1 said...

Temple Grandin addressed humane slaughter using kosher/halal methods (without prior stunning). Apparently it can be done without causing excess fear and suffering. I'm not very good at making links but here are two informative articles from her. (Temple Grandin is an autistic woman who is an expert in reducing discomfort to animals during slaughter. Some of her work is really fascinating.)

https://www.grandin.com/ritual/ritual.slaughter.tips.html

https://www.grandin.com/ritual/maintain.welfare.during.slaughter.html

tcrosse said...

Ironic, isn't it, that kosher/halal methods are used in slaughtering hogs.

gspencer said...

"More like a steel grate"

Troy McClure's 'Meat and You: Partners in Freedom'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzaM6pjOG1Y

tcrosse said...

Who put the 'laughter' in 'slaughterhouse'?

William said...

I was reading a book about Tudor England. Bull baiting was a popular sport. The Elizabethans believed that torturing an animal to death changed the hymour of the beast. I can readily believe that. They also believed that this change in humor helped to balance the humor of those who ate its meat. They also tortured roosters to death. Apparently it was the male of the species that needed its humor changed before slaughter. The useful lesson to be learned here is that people are stupid and cruel.

mockturtle said...

The Nazis also cited cruelty to animals when they prohibited slaughter without stunning in 1933.

By all means, let's invoke Nazis! After all, Hitler was a vegetarian. Conclusion: Vegetarianism must be EVIL!

IIRC, George Bernard Shaw was also a vegetarian. That makes him a Nazi by association. Who knew?

CJinPA said...

I don't know if it's cruel, but dressing the goat in an orange jumpsuit before beheading is just weird.

gilbar said...

But underneath I was really gentle, (oh yeah?)
D'ja ever see me touch a scrap of meat?
O yeah I conquered all those countries
They were weak an' I was strong
A little too ambitious Maybe,
But I never loved Eva Braun.

Gahrie said...

Next is circumcision of boys,

Germany has already banned it.

rcocean said...

Wow, first time I've heard that.

Don't be kind to animals. Hitler would approve.

Laughable and dumb. The Never ending stupidity of the New York Times.

n.n said...

There is a secular consensus that animals can be humanely slaughtered before they are deemed "viable", which is a variable or selective standard in accordance with personal and political beliefs and ethics.

Mark said...

The fact is that rabid anti-semitism was not exclusive to 1930-40s Germany. Those other countries had proposed many solutions to the Jewish Question before the Nazis decided on a final one.

And many of the people in those neighboring countries were all too willing to be collaborators in anti-Jew laws and practices of the Nazis. And they never did fully de-Nazify those countries.

mockturtle said...

True, Mark. During the Middle Ages antisemitism was rampant, especially during the Plagues when Jews were blamed by some.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“The fact is that rabid anti-semitism was not exclusive to 1930-40s Germany. Those other countries had proposed many solutions to the Jewish Question before the Nazis decided on a final one.”

Pretty sure it isn’t Jews the Belgians are worried about. As supine as they seem before the Muzzie flood, the EUer’s aren’t shy about enacting laws, ostensibly to enforce civic secularism, that disproportionately impact Muslims.

Josephbleau said...

Blogger tcrosse said...
Who put the 'laughter' in 'slaughterhouse'?

I thought that was Kurt Vonnegut.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I was surprised to hear that the US hasn't had any problems allowing Halal butchering, but only because you must be Muslim to be a Halal butcher. That seems like that rubs up against employment laws.

Imagine a problem requires a test case. Do any non-Muslims want to be Halal butchers?

BUMBLE BEE said...

Stunning an animal serves a couple of purposes, not the least of which is the spread of adrenaline throughout the animal's muscles. It obviates fight or flight hormonal release, which tends to ruin the meat. Reducing the animal's stresses also means having to limit the animal's hearing grunts of distress if any.

Leland said...

Beyond the concern for animals, Jewish and Muslim leaders see darker motivations behind the effort to outlaw the practices.

I agree. This is just an incremental step towards other progressive agendas.

Earnest Prole said...

Twenty or so years ago, animal-rights activists attempted to outlaw the sale of live chickens and turtles in San Francisco, and discovered to their surprise that there are more Chinese than Progressives in the city.

Robert Holmgren said...

Darker motivations indeed. Most Jews and Muslims aren't very religious, but they are opposed to the ultra-orthodox. Sounds as if this will satisfy the majority. That what makes democracies so great.