2024-02-14 05:48:40
The Court supports prohibiting kosher and halal rituals if the animal is not stunned before slaughter.
He European Court of Human Rights assures in a ruling that prohibiting rituals of animal slaughter in religious communities Muslim and Jewish does not violate article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
European legislation obliges slaughterhouses to stun all animals before sacrificing them to eliminate any type of stress and illness. However, this regulation provides for exceptions for recreational hunting and fishing, birds and rabbits for private domestic consumption and, in addition, underlines the need to “respect the legal or administrative provisions” of the Member States relating, in particular, to religious ritescultural traditions and regional heritage.
When Belgium adopted this regulation, two of the country’s three regions, Flanders and Wallonia, prohibited in 2017 and 2018 the slaughter of cattle that had not been previously stunned, without exceptions. At that time, members of the Muslim and Jewish communities criticized the measure because it prohibits them in fact celebrate their halal and kosher traditions, which require that animals are conscious when they cut their throats.
And there began a judicial journey by the plaintiffs, who argue that the Belgian law violates their right to freedom of religion and it 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 maintained the ban on religious rituals in cattle slaughter.
Now, the European Court of Human Rights has also endorsed this prohibition and ensures that both regions are within their rights to impose stunning prior to slaughter. The Court, which recognizes that it is the first time that it addresses whether the protection of animal welfare might violate religious freedom, admits that the prevention of animal suffering justifies interference with a guaranteed human right “by virtue of the protection of morality”.
The judgment It also notes that the measure had been an interference with the plaintiffs’ freedom of religion, but “it was justified as a matter of principle and might be considered proportionate to the objective pursued, that is, the protection of animal welfare.”
1707891656
#ECtHR #ruling #puts #animal #welfare #religious #freedom
