Religious freedom and animal welfare

It is one thing that animals do not participate in our situation as humans, and another that they do not feel and do not suffer. As Jeremy Bentham said: “If a creature suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take account of that suffering.” It is up to scholars to continue investigating the scope and nature of this sensitivity, but the signer below does not need much science to verify that my family dog ​​is always happy when we visit and when each of us He becomes sad if left alone. Goes out. Their actions ensure that the feeling is mutual, which makes us better to some extent.

Fortunately, every day it is becoming more evident that there is a growing awareness among citizens of the need to guarantee the safety of animals in general and animals living in the human environment in particular. Leaving the thorny issue of bullfighting shows for another time, there are some shortcomings regarding production animals (those meant for the production of food or products of animal origin) that must be resolved. According to these animal sacrifice rules the animals should be protected from unnecessary excitement, pain or suffering, but they believe that when animals are sacrificed according to the rites of institutions registered in the Registry of Religious Organizations, stunning is not required. it occurs. , Of earlier. In other words, Law 32/2007 and EU Regulation 1099/2009 protect against causing unnecessary pain to the animal before killing it, due to religious beliefs.

Is there any solution to this situation? Well, a dispute far beyond our borders gives us a possible answer. In Flanders and Wallonia, they modified their rules by applying reversible stunning even in cases of religious rites. Not satisfied with this reform, the Jewish and Muslim communities went to court, appealing to the religious freedoms recognized in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling striking down that art. 26 of the above Regulation 1099/2009 should be interpreted in the sense that it does not contradict the rules of a Member State which applies, within the framework of religious slaughter, a reversible stunning procedure which does not cause the death of the animal Is. Since the appellants clearly did not like this decision, they unsuccessfully challenged it before the European Court of Human Rights, which held in its judgment that animal welfare is a moral value inherent in contemporary democratic societies, which overrides some expressions of religious freedom. Allows restrictions. ,

Condensation. The Spanish legislator, having no constraints on European rules protecting religious freedom, has taken a bold decision along the lines of countries such as Sweden or Denmark, reforming the rules when production animals are sacrificed according to their Reversible stunning will also be installed. Rituals of religious institutions. As Darwin wrote: “Love for all living creatures is the noblest virtue of man.”

Source link

Leave a Comment