2024-02-13 19:51:02
When in 2017 the regional governments of Wallonia and Flanders got to work to prohibit by decree the slaughter of animals without stunningthe Jewish and Muslim communities of Belgium cried out over the impact of the decision to sacrifice through Jewish rite (kosher) and Muslim (halal). The then president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor, went so far as to call the decision the largest assault on the rights of the Jewish community in Belgium since the Nazi occupation during World War II. This Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the decrees do not violate either religious freedom or the prohibition of discrimination.
The law on protection and welfare of Belgian animals establishes that, except in cases of force majeure or necessity, animals cannot be sacrificed without being anesthetized or stunned. The norm allows, however, one exception: the sacrifice prescribed by religious rite. After the State reform of 2014, animal welfare – which until then was the responsibility of the federal State – became a regional responsibility. Two regions, Flanders in July 2017 and Wallonia in October 2018, decided to end this exception, which has remained in force in Brussels-capital after the decision of the regional Parliament, by a narrow margin, to maintain the practice.
Jewish and Muslim organizations decided to denounce the decrees before the Belgian Constitutional Court, which in 2019 referred a battery of preliminary questions to the EU Court of Justice asking whether slaughter without stunning was compatible with religious freedom enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Following the ruling of the European court, the Belgian high court dismissed the appeals of the affected plaintiffs.
Appeal to Strasbourg
13 Belgian nationals and 7 non-governmental organizations, representing the Muslim communities of Belgium, as well as national and local religious authorities of the Turkish and Moroccan Muslim communities of Belgium, Belgian nationals of the Muslim faith and Belgian nationals of the Jewish faith residing in Belgium, They decided to fight before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In their lawsuit, they alleged that their right to religious freedom had been violated and that Jewish and Muslim believers would find it difficult, if not impossible, to slaughter animals in accordance with the precepts of their religion or obtain meat from such animals.
In its ruling, the Court unanimously states that there has been no violation of article 9 regarding religious freedom nor of article 14 that prohibits discrimination. The judges consider that the decrees were adopted after extensive consultation with representatives of various religious groups, veterinarians and animal protection associations and after considerable efforts to reconcile the objectives of promoting animal welfare and religious freedom. They also consider that both Flanders and Wallonia tried to find a proportionate alternative to the prior stunning obligation. “Based on scientific studies and extensive consultations with interested parties, parliamentary work concluded that no less radical measure could sufficiently achieve the objective of reducing harm to the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter.”
Regarding the plaintiffs’ complaint that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain meat in accordance with their religious beliefs, the Court of First Instance noted that the Flemish and Walloon Regions did not prohibit the consumption of meat from other regions or countries in that stunning prior to slaughter of animals was not a legal requirement and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that access to such meat had become more difficult. Therefore, the court concludes that when adopting the decrees, “the national authorities did not exceed the margin of appreciation recognized to them” and that they adopted a “measure justified in principle”, which could be considered “proportionate to the objective pursued”.
What happens in Spain?
The situation in Spain is different from the Belgian one, says Kamel Jalloul, head of Halal Food and Quality, the company that issues the certification of the majority of foods produced under this rite in Catalonia. “The European Union regulations that regulates halal has been adapted by the Member States in different ways, and here, in Spain, it is governed in the same way as in France, Portugal or Poland. In Belgium, however, they aligned themselves with Germany and the Netherlands, where they are more restrictive.”
In the Spanish case, there are three modalities in sacrifice of animals that arrive at the slaughterhouse, continues Jalloul. The most widespread is that of prior stunning (with electric shock or captive bullet), “but the so-called subsequent stunning, which allows the animal to be cut and, three seconds later, stunned so that it does not suffer in the bleeding process.
Spanish regulations, however, also say that “in the case of animals that are subject to particular methods of sacrifice for religious rites, the obligation will not apply that the animals are slaughtered after stunning.” “In that case, the only thing that we are prohibited by law is that the meat of those animals cannot be marketed under the animal welfare sealbut, on the other hand, we can put the halal label on it,” says the person responsible for certifications.
#European #Court #Human #Rights #supports #prohibiting #slaughter #animals #halal #kosher #ritual