Lord Etherton (CB):...It is not necessary for present purposes to
go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of
shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on
both sides of the debate about the humanity of this, but it is
clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief
is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and in our
own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason
why, as in the case of Article 13 of...Request free trial
(CB):...It is not necessary for present purposes to go
into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of
shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is
scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity
of this, but it is clear that the protection of the right to
manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we
already have and in our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there
can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the
Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the
sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect
for religious rites. This would provide balance, clarity, certainty
and compliance with Article 9 and Section 13 of the Act...
(Con) [V]:...I have received representations from a
number of Muslim communities that have asked me to make the points
that I have raised today. In addition to Muslims, a number of
members of the Jewish community would like the
practice of shechita to be maintained.
Unfortunately, some members of the British population are critical
of halal and other slaughter practices, perhaps due to misconceived
ideas of what religious slaughter entails. I should emphasise that
Islam forbids the mistreatment of animals and guarantees their
welfare and well-being. That is enshrined in our deeply held Muslim
beliefs.
Islam, of course, prescribes how an animal can be slaughtered
for food and we would like that to continue. I and other Muslims
believe that when we undertake halal slaughter, we are acting
humanely. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that halal or
other forms of religious slaughter are less humane than
conventional methods. I have spoken in your Lordships’ House
previously on the issue of halal slaughter and discussed it with
the then Ministers from Defra. I also corresponded with when he was Prime Minister and was assured that the
practice of halal and shechita would be continued.
I very much hope that such matters will remain an integral part of
the slaughtering process. We should therefore include Amendment 31
in the Bill in order that those practices and other matters are
preserved for the sake of our religious communities...
(CB) [V]:...Turning to Amendments 31 and 35, I
fully support the remarks of my noble and learned friend . These amendments are designed to restore to the remit
of the committee to be established by the Bill the balance that
used to be reflected in European law. The committee will have
retrospective powers—that is, it can look back over past animal
issues and reopen them. If the committee were to raise issues
with Jewish methods of killing
animals, the Secretary of State would have to lay a response to
those views before Parliament. The Government have in the past
stated their commitment to protecting that custom, but the Bill
could undermine that. The proposers need the Government’s assurance
in this debate that, were such a situation to arise, they would
guarantee their commitments to religious communities. In saying
this, I support the noble Lord, .
There are arguments about the least cruel method of putting
animals to death. The Jewish way, after much
consideration, is regarded as effective because it causes an
immediate loss of cerebral perfusion. Stunning, however, is driven
by speed and commercial utility and goes wrong in many more
millions of cases of animal deaths than ever take place in
Jewish killing.
Despite the requirement in European law on balance, the
European Court of Justice last year upheld a Belgian ban on
Jewish and Muslim practices of
slaughter without stunning. The argument that stunning is less
injurious than non-stunning does not hold water. We should not
apply double standards. The Food Standards Agency survey of 2017
estimated that hundreds of millions of animals were killed without
effective stunning; gassing, in particular, causes great distress
to animals killed that way. The European Food Safety Authority
reported that, in the most recent count, 180 million chickens and
other poultry were killed using insufficient electric charge. We do
not kill our animals with great attention to their welfare, leaving
aside the Jewish and Muslim methods.
Rabbits’ necks are broken and fish starved and suffocated. We even
mistreat our pets, breeding them to a lifetime of ill health and
depriving them of their natural habitats. If the new committee in
the Bill is to do any good, it should concern itself with making
sure that slaughter methods as they exist are carried out as they
should be and existing welfare standards are enforced.
Will the Minister accept these amendments and ensure
that Jewish slaughter practices are
protected? Not to do so would be seen as an unwillingness to make a
home for those elements of the Jewish community —and the Muslim
community—to whom this is of major importance...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
