An ECtHR decision puts animal welfare above religious freedom

He European Court of Human Rights A decision has assured to ban the rituals of animal slaughter in religious communities. muslim and jew Does not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

European law obliges slaughterhouses to stun all the animals Before sacrificing them to remove any kind of stress and disease. However, this regulation provides exceptions for recreational hunting and fishing, birds and rabbits for private domestic consumption and, in addition, specifically underlines the need to “respect the legal or administrative provisions” of the Member States concerned . religious ritesCultural traditions and regional heritage.

When Belgium adopted this regulation, two of the country’s three regions, Flanders and Wallonia, banned in 2017 and 2018 the slaughter of cattle that were not previously stunned, without exception. At the time, members of the Muslim and Jewish communities criticized the measure because it restricted their In fact Celebrate their Halal and Kosher traditions, which requires animals are conscious When he cut his throat.

and launched a judicial journey by the plaintiffs, who argue that Belgian law violates their right to freedom of religion And this is a form of discrimination. On the other side of the scale is the animal association GAIA, which defends animal welfare. The Belgian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of GAIA and Belgium upheld the ban on religious rituals in animal slaughter.

Now, the European Court of Human Rights has also supported this prohibition and maintained that both regions have the right to impose stunning before slaughter. The Court, which acknowledges that this is the first time it is considering whether the protection of animal welfare could infringe religious freedom, accepts that the prevention of animal suffering does not justify interference with a guaranteed human right. Determines. “On the basis of protecting morality”,

The judgment also said that the measure was an interference with the plaintiff’s religious freedom, but “it was justified on principle and can be considered proportionate to the objective pursued, i.e. the protection of animal welfare.”