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
El-Sayed’s Muslim Motherhood
Melissa B. Greenberg Joins Americans for Ben-Gurion University as New CEO
Did You Hear About the Violent Jews Rioting Through France?
Three More Southern California Journalism Awards! Celebrating Stories from Antarctica, Ireland, and Inspiring Voices
Two Hundred and Five Years – A poem for Parsha Noach
Pico-Robertson Neighborhood Cleanup 2026 Recap
“I Love Life”: Paralyzed for Nearly Two Years, Dennis Prager Talks Gratitude and Happiness at Miami Gala
Having a brain and a voice that are intact means he can continue doing what he loves most: sharing his ideas with the world.
Memorial at Saban, Soraka Medical Center Mark Three Years Since Oct. 7; ‘Fauda’ Panel
Notable people and events in the Jewish LA community.
Vegetarianism and Impossible Utopias
One must remember that the pursuit of impossible utopias often ends up creating dystopias.
A Bisl Torah — Bar Mitzvah Lessons
Many reflect about children’s additional responsibilities as they take on their new title.
A Moment in Time: October 7 – Beyond Black and White
Thorns and Thistles and Two Trees in the Garden of Eden
Print Issue: Making Jewish Fiction New Again | October 16, 2026
In a climate of anti-Jewish censorship, a new fiction imprint from Wicked Son will play a part in determining the future of Jewish fiction in America.
Rabbis of LA | Rabbi Taff and Aliyah
First of two parts
Michael Douglas Memoir, ‘One Helluva Ride,’ Is a Helluva Read
At 82, Douglas has survived cancer, is married to the love of his life, Catherine Zeta-Jones, has been in iconic films including “Wall Street” and “Basic Instinct” and grew up with the pressure of having a famous father, the legendary actor Kirk Douglas.
A Burst of Inspirational Art in Hadassah
What makes them special, in addition to their ethereal beauty, is that four of the paintings are of women; two others, while abstract, appear to reference the female.
‘We Had a Mission to Tell the World Our Story’: ‘Fauda’ Creator Avi Issacharoff
It is Episodes 7 and 8, which take viewers back to Oct. 7, that have generated some of the strongest reactions from audiences around the world.
Three Years Later: 1-in-5 Israelis Report Severe Mental Health Impairment
PTSD diagnoses among children and adolescents in Israel rose almost 2.5-fold after Oct. 7. Clalit Health Services is reaching out to thousands of patients each week who have not reached out for any mental health treatment.
Jewish Charter Schools Take a Step Forward
The possibility of tuition-free Jewish religious education is moving closer to reality.
Jon Polin Wants Answers, Not Revenge, Three Years After Oct. 7
One day before the three-year anniversary of the Oct. 7th attacks, the father of slain hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin called for a national commission of inquiry, spoke about what comes next for him and Rachel, and said punishment for Israel’s failures is not what he seeks.
Oct. 7 Survivors Share Stories of Loss, Courage and Resilience
The memorial event was organized by StandWithUs in partnership with the Israeli-American Council (IAC), American Jewish Committee (AJC) Los Angeles, Temple of the Arts, the Consulate General of Israel and The Jewish Journal.
“Seeing Reality Clearly”: Noa Tishby’s Oct. 7 Address
This speech is my honest look at where we are as a Jewish community.
Beit Issie Shapiro Gala Celebrates Resilience, Independence and the Power of Possibility
Among the evening’s highlights was an inspiring address by Israeli Paralympic champion Moran Samuel, 44, whose remarkable journey from tragedy to triumph captivated the audience.
Proposition 37: The California Middle-Class Homeownership Act and the Future of Jewish Community in Los Angeles
Housing costs affect whether younger families can remain near grandparents, educators can live near schools and congregations can sustain participation across generations.
Challahs in the Air — Rainbows Everywhere
Someday, I hope to make this rainbow challah with my granddaughters.
Table for Five: Noach
World Gone Wrong
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.