Public Morality, Hypocrisy and Animal Welfare, by Pablo de Lora

Should we tolerate religious practices when they involve animal abuse and suffering?

In 2017, the Belgian region of Flanders—following other European countries—banned the slaughter of animals for human consumption without prior stunning, although, in the case of ritual slaughter, it permitted a form of stunning (“reversible”). Gave the permission to. Which causes the animal’s sensitivity to return before it dies. In the opinion of the Jewish and Muslim communities, it is impossible to produce meat through this process. kosher one of two halal, A type of food according to one’s religious principles, “blessed” by an authorized slaughterer, from an animal that has died after having its throat cut and bled, that has not been given hormones or “artificially” fattened And of the movement till the sacrifice of those who live in relative freedom.

as expected The case reached the EU court Through a preliminary ruling in which a Belgian judge asked whether such a prohibition violates European law to the extent that, on the one hand, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union establishes freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Is. , and, on the other hand, Article 13 of the Working Treaty provides that: “…the Union and the Member States shall take full account of the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings.”

Well, in December 2020, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled that in this Belgian case, the desire to protect the welfare of animals is an objective of general interest and that the restriction is proportionate (Case C-336/19). This week another European court, in this case the Court of Human Rights, also ruled that, contrary to the appellants’ allegations, citizens of the Muslim faith and various NGOs, The Belgian State may justifiably restrict freedom of religion and belief by prohibiting ritual sacrifice,

Like other rights established in the Convention, religious freedom is not absoluteBut, as provided in paragraph 9.2, May be restricted to protect public order, health or morals. The welfare of animals, as is clear, is not a categorical obstacle to the exercise of freedom of religious belief, but the ECtHR, in a decidedly innovative interpretation, says that it can be included in the notion of “public morality”. . This limitation is “necessary” even in a democratic society, as is also required in Article 9.2, something which, in the absence of a European “consensus” on the relationship which the State must maintain with the Church(s). Needed , states have a margin of appreciation to which they must be respectful (Executive Officer of Moslim Van Belgie and Others Vs. belgium13 February).

«Sport hunting, fishing or recreational activity with animals is not prohibited in the manner in which they kill them»

In this way, countries have the possibility – but not the obligation – to eliminate the religious exception to the general rule of prior stunning, and some of them may do so with greater legal coverage than now. Spain is one of the largest producers and exporters of meat kosher And halal, probably won’t be one of them. And that’s it, Beyond reasons based on pure economic interests – which are never happily refuted – I believe it would be a matter of great hypocrisy to do so. Moral. Let’s see.

Already when the preliminary ruling question was raised before the CJEU in 2017, Representatives of Muslim and Jewish communities appealed against the discrimination faced by them Against those who generally engage in practices such as sport hunting, fishing or recreational activity with animals, not seeing how they kill prohibited or restricted animals. Then the CJEU, and now the ECtHR, rejects the argument by way of non-discrimination and, in my opinion, too hastily alleges that we are not dealing with similar activities.

But really the question is not that, but the question is how, especially in Spain, it would be possible to appeal to public morality, which includes, among many other things, not causing unnecessary suffering to animals if bullfighting is allowed , In addition to a good number of other practices in which the animals’ interests are rarely given importance. And I think something similar could be said about the rest of European countries, countries where, by the way, meat consumption will continue. halal one of two kosherHowever, yes, something built in “heaven” halal,

But there’s more: the treatment of the animals from which the meat is obtained halal one of two kosherAs I mentioned earlier, being more respectful of your well-being may help; More committed to freedom from suffering throughout life Compared to the lives that, through intensive forms of livestock farming, we impose on animals from which the meat is obtained is obtained through stunning in the former and slaughter with a captive bolt gun in the latter. “Our animals” says a farm advertisement halal In the United States that provides consumers wishing to eat “healthy, organic” meat a few minutes of discomfort before living a natural, blissful life and dying.

It is as follows: What good cause can we offer against the Jew or Muslim whom we compel to offer ritual sacrifice? I am not afraid of anyone.