Jews and Muslims Appeal Dutch Law Requiring Animals to be Stunned Before Slaughter

Religion • June 2011 • Views: 949

Jewish and Muslim representatives Thursday appealed to Dutch lawmakers not to enforce plans requiring animals to be stunned before halaal and kosher slaughtering rituals.

“We are against any form of stunning because it’s against our religion,” Yusuf Altuntas, president of the CMO — an organisation that links the Muslim community with the Dutch government — told a parliamentary commission.

“One of the first measures taken during the Occupation (during World War II) was the closing of kosher abattoirs,” Dutch Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs added during the debate in The Hague.

Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters.

Recent Pages by Alouette (Vicious Babushka):
Zaka: The Volunteers Giving Dignity to Israel's Dead Holocaust Survivor Celebrates 90th Birthday in Auschwitz With 100 Descendants Under Linda Yaccarino, X Is Placing Ads for Major Brands on a Verified Pro-Hitler Account House Republicans May Have Committed Some Light Treason - the Bulwark Burn the Witch! Burn Her! GOP PAC Sets AOC on Fire

Jump to bottom

23 comments

Laughing Gas Sun, Jun 19, 2011 2:17:41pm

Isn't stunning done for humanitarian reasons?

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jun 19, 2011 2:23:52pm

re: #1 Juice

Isn't stunning done for humanitarian reasons?

Yes, but it is prohibited under Islamic and Jewish religious law. Thus stunning laws normally include an exception for kosher and halal slaughter, else Jews and Muslims could not eat meat.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 2:23:54pm

re: #1 Juice

yeah, but its one of those things that are really important in the 2 faiths.

It's not racist really, just insensitive and poor judgement.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 2:24:45pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

the post says both that they're appealing them not to enforce it, but also that there's an exception... is the issue the rules changing?

(PS: Link directly to the article, not to your own blog)

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:34:19pm

Stunning, actually, is quite crueler than cutting the animals throat. They don't give the animal a sedative which is what most people think.

Animal stunning. (just the wiki explanation, no pictures).

In modern slaughterhouses a variety of slaughter methods are used on livestock. Methods include: electrical stunning, gas stunning and percussive stunning

It's more painful and terrifying for the animal than slitting its throat where they die within seconds. Muslims have similar rituals.

What's Wrong with Stunning?

"Stunning" refers to the methods of attempting to render an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter. The main methods used in the general slaughtering industry for cattle and sheep are:

• captive bolt gun: a steel bolt is shot into the skull at the front of the animal’s brain.

• electric shock: electrodes are clamped to the animal's head/heart and the animal is electrocuted.

These methods are contrary to Jewish law, because an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechita. The above stunning methods injure the animal, making it treifa (non-kosher and thus prohibited). If the stunning kills the animal it makes it neveila (an animal which has not been shechted) and is forbidden as food for Jews.

With these methods, during the delay between the stun and sticking or cutting, the animal can regain consciousness, as has been reported by animal welfare groups. The stun effected by shechita is irreversible and there is no delay. Shechita therefore, is humane and efficient.

Apart from the halachic prohibition against the above methods of stunning, there is no conclusive evidence that these methods render an animal insensible to pain. There is evidence that they are only paralyzed, and thus prevented from displaying their pain. Furthermore when the captive bolt method fails, as it does in a significant percentage of cases, it causes considerable additional suffering and distress to the animal. In such cases, the conscious animal is in acute pain as the captive bolt gun is reloaded and reapplied, or the electrical tongs reapplied to re-stun the animal. Shechita avoids these problems of ineffective stunning, since there is no mechanical or electrical appliance to be misapplied or go wrong. Shechita produces an effective and irreversible stun as well as being a humane and efficient slaughter method.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:39:40pm

re: #5 marjoriemoon

heh, why do they do it then? Sadism?

Vicious Babushka Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:41:14pm

re: #5 marjoriemoon

Stunning, actually, is quite crueler than cutting the animals throat. They don't give the animal a sedative which is what most people think.

Animal stunning. (just the wiki explanation, no pictures).

It's more painful and terrifying for the animal than slitting its throat where they die within seconds. Muslims have similar rituals.

So, essentially, stunning is shocking the animal with a big, huge taser.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:44:37pm

re: #6 windsagio

heh, why do they do it then? Sadism?

Well, if you don't like the entire process of killing an animal, than vegetarianism may be for you. I did that for about 5 years, but I was often anemic. It wasn't a good diet for me.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:46:12pm

re: #8 marjoriemoon

that's not what I mean of course, if stunning is so much worse (or crueler) a method, I'm not sure why they'd do it.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:47:18pm

re: #7 Alouette

So, essentially, stunning is shocking the animal with a big, huge taser.

Shocking and paralyzing the animal. Not necessarily keeping it from feeling pain.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:48:31pm

re: #9 windsagio

that's not what I mean of course, if stunning is so much worse (or crueler) a method, I'm not sure why they'd do it.

Because the major beef suppliers don't care what the animal feels. Not just beef, but pigs and chicken, all livestock. Hence groups like PETA and so forth.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:51:16pm

re: #9 windsagio

that's not what I mean of course, if stunning is so much worse (or crueler) a method, I'm not sure why they'd do it.

But I was serious about the vegetarian thing. The animal has to die, of course, if you're going to eat it and some people don't like the entire concept so they get along without it. I understand that. It just didn't work for me.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:54:33pm

re: #11 marjoriemoon

This is beyond 'they don't care', this is 'they're being arbitrarily cruel'. It doesn't address the advantage of stunning, if there is one.

I'll do some more research, I guess I just have trouble taking a religious source saying 'of course our religion is the best way to do it!'

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 4:57:34pm

I should add, animals are animals and dead is dead. I'm all for letting people do it as their faith demands. Hadn't even heard of stunning before this, but just found the line of argument taken kind of wrong :p

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:01:22pm

re: #13 windsagio

This is beyond 'they don't care', this is 'they're being arbitrarily cruel'. It doesn't address the advantage of stunning, if there is one.

I'll do some more research, I guess I just have trouble taking a religious source saying 'of course our religion is the best way to do it!'

Of course you do :)

When the animal's throat is slit, it bleeds to death in a matter of a few seconds, less than 30 seconds, I believe and in the process, it loses consciousness. Jews and Muslims have been applying these methods for centuries because preventing animal cruelty is a matter of law.

Anyway, if you find something different, let us know.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:05:14pm

re: #14 windsagio

I should add, animals are animals and dead is dead. I'm all for letting people do it as their faith demands. Hadn't even heard of stunning before this, but just found the line of argument taken kind of wrong :p

Dead is not dead. One can be tortured to death. Still dead....

What line of argument do you think is wrong? That slaughterhouses don't care about animal suffering?

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:06:24pm

re: #16 marjoriemoon

specifically appealing to a prejudiced source for evidence.

It's like going to Democrats.org for evidence that the national healthcare plan is a good idea.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:06:49pm

re: #17 windsagio

or going to Fox for evidence that Obama is a Kenyan.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:16:18pm

Well, not really LOL One of those things is a lie.

S'ok. Do your own research.

windsagio Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:24:36pm

re: #19 marjoriemoon

haah ok sorry for the bad example :D

BishopX Sun, Jun 19, 2011 5:46:59pm

re: #5 marjoriemoon

Stunning isn't an alternative to throat slitting. In modern slaughterhouses the order is stun, hang then slit.

The stunning has two purposes. First, it renders the animal unconscious faster than cutting the throat and waiting for the animal to faint from blood pressure drop, which makes it more humane (theoretically). Secondly, it means that you're dealing with an unconscious 2,000 pound body rather than a panicked adrenalin filled 2000 lb cow in a bloody room. If you want a good example of the kind of damage a live cow can cause in a slaughter house, I suggest you read The Jungle. Europeans (the christian ones at least) have been stunning cattle for hundreds of years because it makes the slaughter safer for the butchers. That's where the from phrase poleaxed-steer comes from.

What, me worry? Sun, Jun 19, 2011 6:21:42pm

re: #21 BishopX

Stunning isn't an alternative to throat slitting. In modern slaughterhouses the order is stun, hang then slit.

The stunning has two purposes. First, it renders the animal unconscious faster than cutting the throat and waiting for the animal to faint from blood pressure drop, which makes it more humane (theoretically). Secondly, it means that you're dealing with an unconscious 2,000 pound body rather than a panicked adrenalin filled 2000 lb cow in a bloody room. If you want a good example of the kind of damage a live cow can cause in a slaughter house, I suggest you read The Jungle. Europeans (the christian ones at least) have been stunning cattle for hundreds of years because it makes the slaughter safer for the butchers. That's where the from phrase poleaxed-steer comes from.

That's the argument, though. Stunning isn't necessary because if the throat is cut properly, rapidly and thoroughly, the animal loses blood quickly, losing blood pressure and consciousness within seconds and dies immediately after. The stunning isn't a pain blocker. It just immobilizes the animal but adds to its pain and torment/fear. Why ritual slaughter won't do it.

BishopX Sun, Jun 19, 2011 7:23:02pm

re: #22 marjoriemoon

I think the operative word for both processes is "properly", if the stunning method works properly the animal is rendered unconscious very quickly and be killed before they regain consciousness. If ritual slaughter is done properly the animal should pass out quickly as well (it still takes a little bit longer but it's a matter of 10-20 seconds vs 4 seconds).

I that part of the problem with industrial methods (stunning), is that they are measured slightly differently that ritual methods. Industrial methods work as advertised somewhere between 90 and 99% of the time, depending on whether you listen to the animal rights people who focus of factory farming or the scientists who study slaughtering methods. Typically the stun can be quickly judged by checking the breathing, eye movement of the animal. Ritual slaughter is trickier to assess because if it's done properly the animal doesn't show any signs of being in pain until it collpses. This paper, claims that a skilled schochet can deliver 90 to 95 percent of cattle to insensibility within 10 seconds. So in both cases, well constructed slaughterhouses with competent, well trained staff produce similar results.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!