2024-03-04 01:00:00
On February 13, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down a sentence that endorsed the prohibition of slaughter of animals without stunning previous with halal and kosher rituals, typical of the Muslim and Jewish religions, in the regions of Flanders and Wallonia (Belgium).
The ECtHR has adopted this position in favor of the legislation on animal welfare in these territories despite the fact that European regulations, which require stunning animals to prevent their suffering, consider religious reasons a exception.
animal sacrifice
Meat production in the world goes through animal sacrifice in slaughterhouses or outside them. Although it is true that in recent years we have witnessed the development of meat production in laboratorythis mode of production is very far from being able to supply the demand for animal protein of the world population.
[Ésta es la carne española de calidad superior que sin embargo se cría en ‘macrogranjas’]
The slaughter of animals for meat production is a complex process that consists of several phases: inspection before deathstunning, slaughter, inspection post mortemcontrols and oreo.
The entire process must be carried out following nails good practicesreferring to the hygiene of the process (normally in slaughterhouses), veterinary controls (which ensure the healthiness of the meat) and the method of slaughter.
Stunning causes controversy
He daze consists of the loss of consciousness of the animal prior to bleeding and is the basis of humanitarian sacrificesince it reduces their suffering.
Prior stunning is included as an obligation in the European Council Regulation 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter. However, there are exceptions related to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, including the halal rite and the kosher rite. Both rites coincide in the need for the animal is alive before cutting the neck to promote the bleeding and sacrifice of animals.
In this situation of controversy, the figure of the reversible stunning, this concept being understood as stunning that does not result in the death of the animal. Given this, Flanders and Wallonia, with the possibility of legislating on animal welfare, modified their laws in 2017 and 2018, respectively, mandating reversible stunning even in cases of religious rites.
The Jewish and Muslim communities questioned the validity of the regulations, alleging the violation of the right to religious freedom, which is recognized in art. 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in art. 9 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Thus, we find ourselves facing a scenario in which an obvious conflict of interest occurs. On the one hand, the aforementioned right to religious freedom, which encompasses not only the right to profess a religion, but also to observe certain rites inherent to it. And on the other hand, the duty to guarantee animal welfare, expressly mentioned in the art. 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The rulings of three courts
There have been three courts that have intervened to resolve this conflict: the Constitutional Court of Belgium, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights. The three judicial bodies have agreed on the result: does not violate the right to religious freedom a regulation that requires the stunning of animals prior to slaughter when its objective is to guarantee their maximum well-being during the death process.
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Belgium
The Constitutional Court of Belgium ruled in this sense in 2021 following submitting a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, since there were doubts regarding the compatibility between Belgian national regulations and community law.
Resolution of the Court of Justice of the European Union
The CJEU resolves the conflict in its ruling of December 17, 2020 with the matter C-336/19 Central Israelite Consistory of Belgium y otros. There it is stated that Regulation 1099/2009 does not prevent Member States from imposing an obligation of stunning prior to slaughter, which is also applicable in the case of slaughter prescribed by religious rites. Even if the exercise of the right to religious freedom is limited in a certain way, such interference would respond to an objective of general interest recognized by the Union: promoting animal welfare.
It is concluded that the measure contained in the Flanders legislation makes it possible to guarantee a fair balance between animal welfare and the freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion. On the one hand, there is a scientific consensus on the fact that prior stunning is the optimal means of reducing animal suffering at the time of slaughter. On the other hand, the questioned rule does not prohibit or hinder the marketing of products of animal origin from animals slaughtered in accordance with a ritual practice when they come from a territory where their obtaining in accordance with the religious rite is legal.
Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights
Not satisfied with these decisions, the Muslim and Jewish groups went to the European Court of Human Rights, once more alleging the violation of their right to religious freedom. In his ruling of February 13 (Executive of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium), the ECtHR assumes the arguments of the CJEU as its own.
There is, however, a difference between both statements regarding the interests being weighed. Unlike European Union law, which expressly recognizes animal welfare as an objective of general interest, the European Convention on Human Rights It is not intended to protect this well-being.
Now, the ECtHR understands that the protection of animals is recognized through the legitimate objective of protecting “public morality”, understanding that the notion of morality is constantly evolving and that, in today’s society, animal welfare constitutes a ethical value to which contemporary democratic societies attribute increasing importance. Therefore, this value must be taken into account when evaluating the restrictions imposed on the external manifestation of religious convictions.
Once the conflict of interest has been resolved in the terms set forth above, these resolutions support the approval of similar regulations by the rest of the countries of the European Union and the Council of Europe. In fact, such legislation already exists in other states, such as Slovenia, Finland, Sweden or Denmark, which appeared in the procedure before the ECtHR in defense of its legislation.
* Anastasio Argüello Henríquez is a professor of Animal Production, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
* Noemí Castro Navarro is a professor of Animal Production, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
* Sergio Romeo Malanda is a professor of Criminal Law, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
**This article was originally published on The Conversation.
1709518449
#conflict #animal #welfare #rituals #judged #Europe
