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
Power Addict Trump Getting High on New Lows
When Social Media Rewrites Jewish Identity
“United for Sydney” Event, Galperin Named AJC Interim Director, Jewish Future Fellowship
UC Irvine Student Government Removes Language Mentioning Modern Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial in IHRD Resolution
State Senator Scott Wiener to Step Down as Jewish Caucus Co-Chair
I Went – A poem for Parsha Bo
Rain in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt
A Bisl Torah – Complete Darkness
What does it mean to live in total and complete darkness?
A Moment in Time: “I am a Jew”
American Jewish University Rabbi Brad Artson Begins New Chapter
AJU has announced that Rabbi Artson will be named the Mordecai Kaplan Distinguished Scholar, effective July 1, a position that places him at the heart of the university’s intellectual, spiritual and public-facing life.
Where Service Becomes Story: Sailing the Norwegian Escape
Print Issue: Three Days of Israeliness | January 23, 2026
More than 3,500 participants gathered for the Israeli-American Council’s 10th annual summit, a gathering that happily blurred the line between serious content and Israeli vibes.
Hilary Sheinbaum: Going Dry, Sober Curiosity and Non-Alcoholic Margaritas
Taste Buds with Deb – Episode 139
Reflecting on a Giant of Tzedakah, Marvin Schotland, z”l
Marvin Schotland—who passed away Jan. 7 at the age of 78—led the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles for 33 years.
Runner-Up on ‘Survivor,’ Now a Debut Author: Stephen Fishbach’s ‘Escape!‘
The novel centers on Kent Duvall, a faded reality TV star, and a disgraced producer who are offered one last chance at redemption in a competition filmed on a remote island.
Catching Up with Meryl Ain, Author of the Humorous Book of Essays, ‘Remember to Eat’
“I hope that readers laugh, cry, ponder and discuss. I hope they see themselves and people they know in some of the situations and stories.“
This International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Let’s Start with the Survivors Among Us
International Holocaust Remembrance Day is not only a time to look back, it is a call to care for those still here.
Israel on Campus Coalition Takes Fellows on a Meaningful Trip to Israel and UAE
Every year, Israel on Campus Coalition, a nonprofit that empowers pro-Israel students to stand up for Israel on campus, takes their fellows on a 10-day trip to the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
Sephardic and Mizrahi Groups Condemn Wiener’s Genocide Claim
LA-based Iranian-American-Jewish advocacy group, 30 Years After, withdraws support from JPAC until further notice
Life in Black and White
These nostalgic pinwheel cookies are simply delicious. Perhaps you’ll bake them and create special memories for a child in your life.
Pies for Pie Day
These produce-based pies are the perfect addition to any milchig or parve meal.
Table for Five: Bo
Pharaoh’s Refusal
Heroes, Celebrities and Community: Inside the 10th Annual IAC Summit
More than 3,500 participants gathered for the Israeli-American Council’s 10th annual summit, a gathering that happily blurred the line between serious content and Israeli vibes.
Judea Pearl’s New Book and Other Lively Words
A passionate Zionist and renowned scientist shows us that “fighting words” don’t have to look like fighting words.
When Hate Crosses the Threshold: Antisemitism and the Targeting of Jewish Greek Life
We cannot allow Jewish students to live in fear of constant attacks because it’s easier than finding ways to have hard conversations and explore resolutions.
Rosner’s Domain | Turkey or Apocalypse
There are four things to consider as we ponder the U.S.-declared transition to a “second phase” in Gaza.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.