A recent decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a Belgian regulation requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter — in violation of kosher and halal slaughter — came as an unpleasant surprise to many observers. I’m not sure why. It’s long been clear that Jews are a headache that many European countries tolerate without much enthusiasm. A Jerusalem Post editorial called the court decision “a serious affront to both Jews and Muslims and must be reversed.” Again, I’m not sure why. Jewish and Muslim groups argued that the Belgian measure was an attack on their rituals. Maybe so. They argued that the decision “puts animal welfare above freedom of religion.” And what if it does?
Make no mistake: I have no sympathy for decisions such as the one reached by the ECJ. Still, I must acknowledge that making a strong case against them is not as easy as it might seem. Let’s say that for Europeans — or their legal institutions — it is more important to ease the suffering of slaughtered animals than it is to allow Jews or Muslims to keep with their traditions. Is that really so preposterous? Let’s say that the decision is indeed an “affront to both Jews and Muslims.” Does this really mean it has to be reversed?
The arguments against the court’s decision are many and are often confused. I suggest we look at them one by one.
There are factual arguments, such as “Kosher slaughter does not involve more suffering.” I am not an expert on animal consciousness, nor are most rabbis and activists who argue one way or the other. The court must listen to experts and decide if this is really the case. If there are enough honest experts who believe that a certain procedure is kindlier than the Jewish-Muslim practice, I see no reason not to accept the verdict. Not even if such a verdict is an inconvenient one.
There are “balancing act” arguments — as in “you should not prioritize this above that.” These are all ideological in nature. For one person, freedom of religion is more important than what animals feel; for another person, it is not. Ultimately, in almost all societies, there is a limit to religious freedom. Your religion demands human sacrifice? Sorry — your freedom ends here. This is also true for preventing bigamy, female mutilation or the use of certain hallucinogenic drugs. Societies have boundaries. Even those who value freedom of religion are not going to accept every argument in favor of every practice. And as much as I’d like to draw the boundaries for everybody, I must accept that it’s not for me to say what European boundaries ought to be.
There is the “this is all a ploy to kick us out” argument and its close relative, “this is anti-Semitic.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t (I believe it probably is). But this argument is not a valid legal one unless you have proof. And even then, the motivation of the perpetrators does not negate the validity of their arguments (Kosher slaughter should be banned for cruelty). They can always say: Stop consuming Kosher (or Halal) meat and see what happens; we will let you stay, no problem.
There is the “you can’t suddenly force us to change the rules” argument. Sorry — that’s not true. And as proof, let me remind you that no Jew or Muslim complained when the rules in Europe were changed in favor of more tolerance and against all forms of discrimination, even though the change suddenly came after many generations of a norm of intolerance.
There is the “Jews will not be able to live here anymore” argument. So what? Are we a rare species that Europeans must preserve at all cost? Do they have to protect us even if preservation means accepting a daily practice of barbaric slaughter? I don’t think such an argument is very convincing. Again, there is a balancing act here, and what determines the outcome is the weight each person or institution puts on different interests and values. You (and I) might think that letting Jews and Muslims live their lives undisturbed is more important than easing the suffering of cows, but I can see why other people might not feel the same. I see their point when they say, “if you can’t eat non-Kosher meat, be a vegetarian Jew or change your rules for religious slaughter.”
The bottom line to all of this is simple. My colleague at JPPI, Dr. Dov Maimon, who knows more about Europe and its Jews than most everybody else, keeps reminding me that our failure as Jews to convince Europeans of the need to let Jews be Jews is not about legal arguments. It is not about the court not getting the facts right. In Maimon’s words, it reflects “an ideological and cultural divide between two different worldviews and sources of authority that extends across millennia.” He identifies that “Europe’s human rights discourse is evolving from a primary emphasis on religious tolerance and identity accommodation to an emphasis on individualism with universal claims grounded in national or European culture.”
European attempts to ban Jewish and Muslim rituals, such as Kosher slaughter or male circumcision, rely on prioritizing certain rights over others. That’s why it is so difficult to beat them. We are not against Jews — we are for animals. We are not against Muslims — we are against pain. Europeans prioritize secular, modern interpretations of rights over those that safeguard traditional cultural and religious beliefs. In fact, the anti-slaughter movement is a small change compared to an anti-circumcision movement that is very active. Public opinion polls show support for a ban on circumcision throughout Europe. Legal attempts to ban circumcision are being pursued in Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. As with Jewish slaughter, should one ban succeed, others will follow.
European attempts to ban Jewish and Muslim rituals rely on prioritizing certain rights over others.
In essence, a campaign against the legality of a core Jewish practice is a campaign of forced acculturation. It strives to end distinctive practices of a minority and thus drives it to assimilate into a majority. We, Jews, have been there before. We had to overcome similar challenges. Did anyone say Hanukkah?
Europe to Jews: No Kosher Meat for You!
Shmuel Rosner
A recent decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a Belgian regulation requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter — in violation of kosher and halal slaughter — came as an unpleasant surprise to many observers. I’m not sure why. It’s long been clear that Jews are a headache that many European countries tolerate without much enthusiasm. A Jerusalem Post editorial called the court decision “a serious affront to both Jews and Muslims and must be reversed.” Again, I’m not sure why. Jewish and Muslim groups argued that the Belgian measure was an attack on their rituals. Maybe so. They argued that the decision “puts animal welfare above freedom of religion.” And what if it does?
Make no mistake: I have no sympathy for decisions such as the one reached by the ECJ. Still, I must acknowledge that making a strong case against them is not as easy as it might seem. Let’s say that for Europeans — or their legal institutions — it is more important to ease the suffering of slaughtered animals than it is to allow Jews or Muslims to keep with their traditions. Is that really so preposterous? Let’s say that the decision is indeed an “affront to both Jews and Muslims.” Does this really mean it has to be reversed?
The arguments against the court’s decision are many and are often confused. I suggest we look at them one by one.
There are factual arguments, such as “Kosher slaughter does not involve more suffering.” I am not an expert on animal consciousness, nor are most rabbis and activists who argue one way or the other. The court must listen to experts and decide if this is really the case. If there are enough honest experts who believe that a certain procedure is kindlier than the Jewish-Muslim practice, I see no reason not to accept the verdict. Not even if such a verdict is an inconvenient one.
There are “balancing act” arguments — as in “you should not prioritize this above that.” These are all ideological in nature. For one person, freedom of religion is more important than what animals feel; for another person, it is not. Ultimately, in almost all societies, there is a limit to religious freedom. Your religion demands human sacrifice? Sorry — your freedom ends here. This is also true for preventing bigamy, female mutilation or the use of certain hallucinogenic drugs. Societies have boundaries. Even those who value freedom of religion are not going to accept every argument in favor of every practice. And as much as I’d like to draw the boundaries for everybody, I must accept that it’s not for me to say what European boundaries ought to be.
There is the “this is all a ploy to kick us out” argument and its close relative, “this is anti-Semitic.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t (I believe it probably is). But this argument is not a valid legal one unless you have proof. And even then, the motivation of the perpetrators does not negate the validity of their arguments (Kosher slaughter should be banned for cruelty). They can always say: Stop consuming Kosher (or Halal) meat and see what happens; we will let you stay, no problem.
There is the “you can’t suddenly force us to change the rules” argument. Sorry — that’s not true. And as proof, let me remind you that no Jew or Muslim complained when the rules in Europe were changed in favor of more tolerance and against all forms of discrimination, even though the change suddenly came after many generations of a norm of intolerance.
There is the “Jews will not be able to live here anymore” argument. So what? Are we a rare species that Europeans must preserve at all cost? Do they have to protect us even if preservation means accepting a daily practice of barbaric slaughter? I don’t think such an argument is very convincing. Again, there is a balancing act here, and what determines the outcome is the weight each person or institution puts on different interests and values. You (and I) might think that letting Jews and Muslims live their lives undisturbed is more important than easing the suffering of cows, but I can see why other people might not feel the same. I see their point when they say, “if you can’t eat non-Kosher meat, be a vegetarian Jew or change your rules for religious slaughter.”
The bottom line to all of this is simple. My colleague at JPPI, Dr. Dov Maimon, who knows more about Europe and its Jews than most everybody else, keeps reminding me that our failure as Jews to convince Europeans of the need to let Jews be Jews is not about legal arguments. It is not about the court not getting the facts right. In Maimon’s words, it reflects “an ideological and cultural divide between two different worldviews and sources of authority that extends across millennia.” He identifies that “Europe’s human rights discourse is evolving from a primary emphasis on religious tolerance and identity accommodation to an emphasis on individualism with universal claims grounded in national or European culture.”
European attempts to ban Jewish and Muslim rituals, such as Kosher slaughter or male circumcision, rely on prioritizing certain rights over others. That’s why it is so difficult to beat them. We are not against Jews — we are for animals. We are not against Muslims — we are against pain. Europeans prioritize secular, modern interpretations of rights over those that safeguard traditional cultural and religious beliefs. In fact, the anti-slaughter movement is a small change compared to an anti-circumcision movement that is very active. Public opinion polls show support for a ban on circumcision throughout Europe. Legal attempts to ban circumcision are being pursued in Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. As with Jewish slaughter, should one ban succeed, others will follow.
In essence, a campaign against the legality of a core Jewish practice is a campaign of forced acculturation. It strives to end distinctive practices of a minority and thus drives it to assimilate into a majority. We, Jews, have been there before. We had to overcome similar challenges. Did anyone say Hanukkah?
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
John Ondrasik, Jonah Platt Highlight AJC, ADL Press Briefing at UCLA Hillel
Shabbat Prayer for Our College Students and Ourselves
1,400 Yizkors
Being Good is Easier to Resist than Sweezy vs New Hampshire
A Bisl Torah – Souls Connected
All the Fish in the Sea – A poem for Parsha Acharei Mot
Culture
Welcome Back, Carbs!
A Perfect Pair of Confits
‘The Enemy Beside Me’: Can the Truth of Lithuania Holocaust History Be Told in Lithuania to Lithuanians and By Lithuanians?
A History of a Pivotal Era in Palestine Wins a Top Jewish Book Prize
State Legislator Demands Federal Probe into UCLA’s Failure to Protect Pupils
Assembly member Rick Chavez Zbur said UCLA’s inaction “likely violate” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chancellor Block Addresses Pro-Palestinian Encampment Removal: “It Needed to Come to an End”
Block said the encampment “became a focal point for serious violence.”
Police Clear Pro-Palestinian Encampment at UCLA
More than 200 protesters were arrested during the late night raid.
The Assault: A Coordinated Attack on America’s Jews and Israel
American Jews are awakening to a new political reality concerning our changing status and position in the United States.
We Need Tactical Training to Combat Campus Antisemitism
We need on-the-ground tactical training for Jewish student activists and leaders if the Jewish community is going to push back against this madness and protect college students.
Hollywood
Spielberg Says Antisemitism Is “No Longer Lurking, But Standing Proud” Like 1930s Germany
Young Actress Juju Brener on Her “Hocus Pocus 2” Role
Behind the Scenes of “Jeopardy!” with Mayim Bialik
Podcasts
Chico Menashe: Asif: Culinary Institute of Israel, Cooking with Chutzpah and The Open Kitchen Project
Beth Lee: OMG Yummy, Exciting Flavors and Preserved Lemons
More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.