User talk:RPSM

Welcome!

Hello, RPSM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Shirahadasha 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter

Greetings RPSM. How are you? I've notice your various posts on Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter, which I'd like to discuss with you. Perhaps you're new to Wikipedia and getting a sense of how things tend to work around here? From your posts, you sound like you are quite well informed and interested in contributing. Maybe you could take a look at the guidelines on how we use Talk pages for articles? Talk pages are primarily used to discuss questions about how to edit the article, editing disputes, choices about sources and wording, and the like. However, it seems like you've been posting on the Talk page a fair amount of information, raw data, or analysis about the topic, and the like. Do you know what I mean? This kind of material isn't so appropriate for the article's Talk page. To be sure, there is a way you can store information & analysis that might eventually be incorporated into the article. You're allowed to set up and work with a "User page." Since you're new here, if you don't mind, how about if I set up a User page for you, in which you can move some of your posted information over at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter? I'm hoping you'd find this helpful and make it easier for you to collaborate with other editors on the article. Ok? Best wishes with your efforts here. Take care, HG | Talk 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I forgot to mention a stylistic matter that will make things easier for us. When you post on a Talk page, try to keep your comments condenses. Avoid double spacing or bullet points, try to write in concise paragraphs. Otherwise, the Talk page gets filled up and it's hard for other editors to follow the discussion threads. Make sense? Thanks, HG | Talk 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. Please be civil in your Talk comments. "stupid stupid stupid" is not a kind way of speaking about somebody else's efforts, and inappropriate for section headings. Thanks! HG | Talk 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Here is the user page for you, with some of your posts copied in: User:RPSM/workshop/ritual slaughter. If you are satisfied with the posts on the user page, you may want to go back to the article Talk page and delete the versions there.

Regarding your email correspondence -- please read WP:OR and associated pages, as need be. Wikipedia does not rely on individual editors doing research. Instead, we are a "tertiary" source based mainly on secondary sources. (See also: WP:RS.) So you are welcome to hold onto the emails for your information, but when editing (or suggesting edits) for the article, you'll need to come up with reliable (primary or) secondary sources, e.g. Finnish law or reports about the law. Good luck, HG | Talk 18:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual slaughter

Norway - origins and nature of restrictions

Hi! Thanks for forwarding Andreas Snildal's paper on Animal Protection Movement etc. It was an interesting read, and it lends credence to both our lines of reasoning. Yes, there is an EFFECTIVE ban on ritual slaughter in Norway in terms of commercially produced meat due to the stunning requirement, however, even Snildal's most sincere attempts fail to show the driving force behind the proposal was motivated by some Anti-Jewish campaign. The best he can do is to point out that Dr. Malm and the Animal Protection Movement: "although the animal protection movement distanced themselves from anti-Semitism, they advocated a policy that ultimately sought to discriminate a religious practice".

Yes. They did. Because requiring stunning before slaughter makes such a practice impossible by default. This is not the same as banning ritual slaughter. The fact meat produced commercially through ritual slaughter is not to be found in a Norwegian supermarket is a consequence, not a driving force. Even Snildal admits it takes selective interpretation to tie Malm's statements to religious bias. Dr. Malm and the animal protection movement were just as concerned with rural slaughtering practices (without stunning) in Norway at the time.

The section on Norway in the 'Legal aspects of ritual slaughter' used to mention Norway had an effective ban, rather than a legal ban, on ritual slaughter. This has unfortunately been removed. There is a HUGE difference between banning a practice for religious reasons and a practice being being outlawed as a consequence of other legislation. An acquaintance of mine pointed out that although the Bible specifically say "you shall not let a witch live", you cannot kill witches, because since secular law trumps religious law, and secular law defines a witch as a person, you cannot kill a person based on your religious conviction.

I am of course not comparing ritual slaughter and witch-burning, but in principle it is the same dilemma. There is no law in Norway saying "You cannot kill witches" anymore than (and Snilberg cannot produce evidence either) there is a law saying "you cannot perform ritual slaughter as it is a Jewish practice". Actually, as you and I have debated before, there is no law against ritual slaughter in Norway (if it is you own goat, you can do what you like (within reason) to it, and then eat it). The Health/Sanitary restrictions effectively prohibits ritual slaughter when it comes to meat that is commercially available.

Again - thanks for forwarding the paper. I wish the main article would be changed back so that it reflects the lack of a legal prohibition, although is still ought to mention the consequences prohibits it.

need to get the "origin" of the bans right.

The initial ban on kosher slaughter in modern Europe originated in the late 19th century in 1897 in Switzerland. Later bans were enacted in Bavaria in 1930, in Norway, Germany and Sweden in the mid-1930s. [citation needed]

This is bad - it is copied from the article Bans on ritual slaughter, now Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Dates are wrong, and lumping countries together in categories results in inaccuracies and wrong impressions.

Where bans originated? they were part of a debate in Some parts of Germany and Switzerland, connected with the unification of the German State, with the introduction and development of stunning techniques, - the first ban was in the Canton of Aragon (Aargau) where a dispensation for Jews was granted with the stunning provision in 1855 and withdrawn ten years later. From an analysis of the Swiss federal referendum, it could be seen that Protestant cantons supported the ban: Catholic cantons were against. The schäcten technique was not only used by Jews, as some thought the meat was better and more hygienic with this technique. Neither was there solid opposition. The situation was complex involving many strands, anti-Semitism being only one. See: http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf

Your note

I suggest that you go ahead and add a summary of this content yourself, citing the sources you've uncovered. If you don't know proper formatting others can clean up etc. for you. I also suggest not deleting what others have written pending the resolution of the discussion, if you don't do any deletes others will have less reason to revert what you've done. It's much more likely that others will respond if you go ahead and add to the article than if you simply make suggestions on the talk page. See WP:BOLD. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal for legislation in the Swedish Riksdag on 3 October 2005.

Förbudet mot slakt enligt koscher- och halal-regler är ett hinder för människor som vill leva i enlighet med sin tro. Andra länder har klarat att förena religionsfrihet med djurskydd. Det är dags att Sverige ändrar sin lag från 1930-talet om förbud mot judiska och muslimska slaktmetoder, säger jag i en riksdagsmotion.

The ban on slaughter according to kosher and halal regulations is an obstacle for individuals who wish to live according to their religion. Other countries have managed to combine the Freedom of Religion with Animal Welfare. It is time that Sweden changes its law from the 1930s banning Jewish and Muslim slaughter, I said in a motion to the Swedish Riksdag.

Religiös slakt av Martin Andreasson (fp) Religious slaughter by Martin Andreasson (fp)

Förslag till riksdagsbeslut Proposition for legislation.

Riksdagen tillkännager för sin mening vad i motionen anförs om möjligheten till religiös slakt i Sverige.That the riksdag accepts what is proposed in the motion regarding the enacting of legislation to permit religious slaughter in Sweden.

Motivering Motivation

Den svenska djurskyddslagstiftningen innehåller ett generellt förbud mot att slakta djur utan föregående bedövning. I 14 § anges djurskyddslagen att husdjur ska vara bedövat när blodet tappas av och att andra åtgärder vid slakten inte får vidtas innan djuret är dött. Detta innebär att vissa religiösa slaktmetoder inte är tillåtna i Sverige.

The Swedish Legislation for the Protection of Animals contains a general ban on slaughtering animals without previous stunning. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Protection of Animals Act, is the requirement that domestic animals must be stunned before blood letting occurs and that other precautions at slaughter may not be initiated before the animal is dead. What this means is that certain religious slaughtering methods are banned in Sweden.

När det i denna motion talas om religiös slakt avses så kallad skäktning, det vill säga att djuret slaktas genom att en rakbladsvass kniv förs i ett obrutet drag genom matstrupen, luftstrupen och halspulsådrorna. Denna slaktmetod ingår i både de judiska föreskrifterna om koscher och de muslimska föreskrifterna om halal. Avgörande i båda religionerna är att djuret inte stressas under slakten och känner så lite smärta som möjligt.

When, in this motion, religious slaughter is referred to, what is meant also includes so called schächten i.e. that a razor sharp knife is wielded in an uninterrupted stroke across the trachea, the bronchus and the oesophagus and the carotid arteries. This method of slaughter is part of the precepts of Jewish kashruth and Muslim halal. What is crucial in both religions is that the animal is not stressed during slaughter and that as little pain as possible is felt.

År 1937 förbjöds skäktning i Sverige. Även om frågan gjordes till ett renodlat djurskyddsärende som behandlades inom ramen för slaktlagen kan man diskutera om detta var det enda motivet för reformen. Detta visas bland annat genom vad departementschefen anförde i propositionen (1937:188, min kursivering): ”Oavsett hur det förhåller sig med graden av lidande som vid skäktningen tillfogas djuret, föreligger även andra omständigheter som tala för ett skäktningsförbud. Man kan således inte bortse från att skäktningen gör ett mera motbjudande och råare intryck på åskådaren än bedövningsslakten. […] Vidare måste beaktas, att det otvivelaktigt för stora delar av vårt folk framstår såsom stötande att en sådan slakt är lagligen tillåten […].”

In 1937 schächten was banned in Sweden. Even though the case was made out as being purely a matter of Animal Welfare which was being dealt with within the framework of the Slaughter Act, it is debatable whether this was the only motive for the reform. This can be demonstrated by a number of things, one of them being the the text of a proposal (for legislation) by the Head of the Department (1937:188, ) "Whatever may be the case regarding the degree of suffering inflicted on the animal, circumstances speak out for schächten ban. Thus one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that schächten makes a more disgusting and brutal impression on the observer than slaughter with anesthetisation. (...) Furthermore regard must be paid to the fact that without doubt, for large sections of our population, it seems offensive that this type of slaughtering method is permitted by law.(...)

Med andra ord fanns det inte bara djurskyddshänsyn bakom förbudet utan också en vilja att ta avstånd från judarnas traditionella religiösa slaktmetod. Att förbudet infördes vid denna tid bör ses i ljuset av den internationella utvecklingen. Schweiz förbjöd skäktning redan 1893, Norge följde efter 1930, Tyskland i och med nazisternas maktövertagande 1933 och Sverige alltså 1937. I alla områden som var underkuvade av nazisterna under andra världskriget var skäktning förbjuden. Förbudet hävdes efter krigsslutet i alla länder utom Norge, Schweiz och Sverige. Även Island har i dag ett generellt förbud mot skäktning.

In other words it was not purely regard for Animal Protection that lay behind the ban, but also a wish to have nothing to do with the traditional Jewish method of slaughtering. The fact that the ban was introduced at this time in particular ought to be viewed in the light of developments on the international scene at the time. In Switzerland schächten had been banned since 1893, Norway followed suit in 1930, as did Germany with the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 and then Sweden in 1937. In all the areas which were conquered by the Nazis during the Second World War schächten was banned. The ban was lifted at the end of the war in every single country except Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. Today, Iceland also has a general ban on schächten.

Den svenska hållningen till religiös slakt präglas av dubbelmoral. Utgångspunkten för all lagstiftning borde vara att den bygger på principer som är generella och skulle kunna förverkligas i alla länder. Den svenska linjen förutsätter däremot att andra länder inte följer vårt exempel.

The Swedish attitude to religious slaughter is hypocritical. The starting point for any legislation should be that it is based on principles that are universal, and that can be brought into effect in each country. The Swedish line is, however, that other countries should not follow our example.

Å ena sidan har vi totalförbud mot religiös slakt, å andra sidan accepterar vi att enskilda människor löser detta dilemma genom att importera kött från djur slaktade enligt kosher- och halalföreskrifter i andra länder. Den som håller kosher eller strikt håller sig till halalföreskrifterna kan rentav i särskilda fall serveras sådan kost inom offentlig verksamhet, t.ex. under värnpliktstjänstgöring.

On the one hand we have a total ban on religious slaughter, and on the other hand we accept that individuals solve this dilemma by importing meat from animals slaughtered according to kosher and halal provisions in other countries. Those who keep kosher or strictly follow the halal precepts can, quite simply, in certain cases, be served this food under government operations e.g. when doing military service.

I EU:s slaktdirektiv är grundprincipen att djur skall bedövas före avblodning. Där ges dock möjlighet att slakta djur genom avblodning utan föregående bedövning i samband med religiösa ceremonier, en möjlighet som Sverige alltså inte tillämpar. Även länder som tillåter religiös slakt har vanligtvis olika regler för att säkerställa djurskyddshänsyn, till exempel krav på bedövning omedelbart efter snittläggning, närvaro av veterinär och fixering av djuret.

In the EU directive regarding slaugher the basic principle is that animals must be stunned before blood letting. However, there is a provision that permits animals to be slaughtered without prior stunning in connexion with religious ceremonies, [this should read religious rites - translator's note] an exception that Sweden does not allow. Even countries that permit religious slaughter usually have various rules and regulations to guarantee Animal Welfare, for example, requirements that the animal is stunned immediately after the cut is made, the presence of a vetenarian and the stabilization of the animal.

Djurskyddsmyndigheten redovisade i april 2005 en rapport där man på nytt utvärderar olika frågor kring religiös slakt. Bland annat görs en översikt av lagstiftningen i olika länder. Särskilt intresse ägnas Nya Zeeland, där det förekommer reversibel elektrisk bedövning av nötkreatur i samband med halalslakt. Djurskyddsmyndighetens slutsats är att hanteringen av djuren i samband med elektrisk bedövning kan göras på ett djurskyddsmässigt acceptabelt sätt, under förutsättning att djuren hanteras lugnt och fixeringsboxen är väl utformad, så att djuren är fixerade under en mycket kort tid. Bedövningseffekten vid elektrisk bedövning av den aktuella typen är dokumenterat god.

In April 2005, the Animal Protection Authority presented a report where once again various questions regarding religious slaughter were evaluated. One of these was a summary of the legislation that applies in various countries. Special attenton was paid to New Zealand, where they use reversible electric stunning of bovines in connexion with halal slaughter. The conclusion of the Animal Protection Authority was that the handling of the animal in connexion with electric stunning can be carried out in a way that is acceptable from the Animal Welfare point of view, provided that the animal is handled in a calm manner, that the stabilization box is well designed, so that the animal is held for only a brief period. The stunning effect of the electical stunning used has been documented as effective and satisfactory.

Även om själva bedövningsmetoden bedöms vara effektiv och tillförlitlig pekar dock Djurskyddsmyndigheten på att den ändå inte kan införas i Sverige, eftersom svensk lag och EU:s slaktdirektiv inte tillåter de metoder som slakten förutsätter. Bland annat gäller detta användningen av immobilisering (elektrisk stimulering i syfte att hämma muskelryckningar i slaktkroppen), som strider mot svenska regler om att inga andra åtgärder (utöver avblodning) får vidtas med slaktkroppen förrän djuret är dött.

Even if the actual stunning method has been evaluated as being effective and reliable, the Animal Protection Agency points out that that it cannot be introduced into Sweden, because Swedish Law and the EUs Slaughter Directive do not permit the methods this type of slaughter requires. One of these is this use of immobilization (electrical stimuli to inhibit muscle convulsions in the slaughtered cadaver), which breaches Swedish regulations which say that no other precautions (apart from blood letting) may be taken before the animal is dead.

Djurskyddshänsynen måste alltid väga tungt. Det gäller också vid religiös slakt. Samtidigt är det ett faktum att den svenska lagstiftningen har utformats helt utan hänsyn till de särskilda aspekter som olika religioner anlägger på slaktmetoder. En skenbart neutral lagstiftning blir i praktiken ett hinder för människor att kunna leva i enlighet med sin tro.

Regard for Animal Welfare must always be a priority. And this is even the case with religious slaughter. At the same time it is a fact that the Swedish legislation has been drafted without any concern for the particular aspects that various religions require when slaughtering. What seems on the surface to be a impartial legislation, constitutes in practice an obstacle for individuals to be able to live according to their faith.

Den svenska lagstiftningen måste alltså förändras, eftersom den inte är någon hållbar lösning på avvägningen mellan djurskyddshänsyn och religionsfrihet. Inte minst mot bakgrund av de möjligheter som Djurskyddsmyndigheten pekar på bör arbetet fortsätta med att skapa ett regelverk som ger möjlighet till religiös slakt och samtidigt skapar tillräckliga garantier för djurskyddshänsyn. Det får ankomma på regeringen att avgöra närmare åtgärder.

The Swedish legislation needs to be changed, because it is not a valid solution when balancing Animal Welfare against the Freedom of Religion. Not least with regard to the background material regarding the various options that the Animal Protection Authority has presented, work needs to continue to create a legal framework that will permit religious slaughter, and, at the same time, create sufficient guarantees to ensure Animal Welfare. It would be the government's task to determine what these specific precautions might be.

Stockholm den 3 oktober 2005

Martin Andreasson (fp)

Stockholm den 3 October 2005

Martin Andreasson (Folkpartiet Liberal Party)

RPSM 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

I had to revert the edits you made today. The reason for this is that your edits, while well-intentioned, changed portions of the article which were direct quotes from court decisions and other source documents. Direct quotes can't be changed: we can't improve what someone else said, we have to report it as it is. You are welcome to improve portions of the article that aren't direct quotes. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. RPSM (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

draft (to go to subuser page later)

Proposals from animal welfare groups

Note: this section is duplicated from the similar "Modern Debates" subsection -- this is an open problem, see talk page

Since approximately 1880 proposals have repeatedly surfaced from the animal welfare advocacy groups based ostensibly on animal cruelty concerns, but which, in actual fact are related to Kulturkampf - the secularization of certain areas of public life in Germany and elsewhere that were previously governed by religious authorities as well as an element of antisemitism whereby what the facts were about traditional European slaughter and traditional Jewish slaughter were unknown in detail by ordinary people, and where - as is common in antisemitic campaigns throughout the ages - exaggerations, distortions and downright lies and rumours became the subject of heated arguments in European parliaments and newspaper columns, and where even vetinarians disagree and belong to one camp or the other (pro or anti banning) depending on their cultural background and other factors. RPSM (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

RPSM, I have read your interesting comments on the Judaism article and would like to help you. But, several other editors are very well-learned in Jewish matters. Some of your ideas have merit; others would be contested. But that is not what matters. What matters is that editors do not put their own views or interpretations into articles. Please consult WP:NOR carefully. If you want to propose specific changes that comply with our core policies, WP:NPOV whicn concisely states that we add only notable points of view, and we identify what we add as a point of view and not as "the truth", and our WP:V policy, which requires notable views to come from reliable and verifiable sources, and if your proposed changes do not violate WP:NOR I can add the changes on your behalf. Please familiarize yourself with those policies and promose a few specific edits and I will help you. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have limited computer time, so will come back to this. I notice that Hayyim Maccoby in his books picked up on some of Kaufman Kohlers ideas about differences between Christianity and Judaism, and Paul of Tarsus. But yes, whatever is the consensus of what is Judaism is ok. Back later. RPSM (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be consensus. Wikipedia articles should provide accounts of multiple, even conflicting points of view when appropriate. What matters is that any point of view represented be (1) notable and (2) come from a reliable, verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaak Aleksandrovich Dembo

== will be subpage later when i find out how to do it. is from book auction == https://www.virtualjudaica.com/Item/25517/Ha-Shehitah+ve-ha-Bedikah+

Isaak Aleksandrovich Dembo Russian physician; born at Poneviezh, government of Kovno, in 1846. Dembo studied Hebrew and rabbinical literature under the direction of Samuel Salant and other Talmudic authorities until the age of fourteen, when he devoted himself to secular studies, and in 1870 graduated as M.D. from the University of St. Petersburg. He served as physician in several hospitals, and in 1877, on the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war, enlisted in the medical department of the army. He was awarded a medal for his services. In 1881-82 he traveled in Germany and France, and on his return to St. Petersburg was appointed physician to the Alexandrowski Hospital. In 1888 the government bestowed upon him the title of "privy councilor." Dembo turned his attention to the scientific study of the slaughtering of animals according to the Jewish rite. In Switzerland and in Germany attempts had been made to secure the prohibition of the Jewish method, on the plea that it caused the animals unnecessary pain. After investigating the matter and studying all the current methods of slaughtering in Russia and abroad, Dembo arrived at the conclusion that the Jewish method caused less pain than any other. He communicated his results to the leading scientists (who agreed with him on the matter) and to the governments interested. Dembo published two works on this subject; namely, "Anatomisch-Physiologische Grundlagen der Verschiedenen Methoden des Viehschlachtens," Leipsic, 1894; and "Das Schlachten im Vergleich mit Anderen Schlachtmethoden vom Standpunkte der Humanität und Hygiene," ib. 1894. The latter work was translated into Hebrew under the title "Ha-Sheḥiṭah weha-Bedikah," Warsaw, 1896. RPSM (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I believe you and I agree on many points the topic "Ritual Slaughtering", but I am still a little uncomfortable with the wording. I believe we must distinguish between an actual ban and regulations that prohibits ritual slaughtering due to other factors. The fact that something is impossible to do, does not mean it is illegal to do it. --Sparviere (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I understand your point, and changed 'bans' to 'effective bans' in the article. Nevertheless, when you go back to the debates in the Swedish and other law making assemblies banning Jews from slaughtering was the primary focus". Absolutely! Which is the reason I believe we must differentiate. Being neither Jewish nor Muslim, I am nevertheless in favor of allowing ritual slaughtering. As far as I can tell, there are 3 different types of prohibition: 1) Actual bans again ritual slaughtering; 2) Animal welfare and meat handling/processing regulations that specifically mentions or considers ritual slaughtering, and either creates an effective ban or gives guidelines; 3) Animal welfare and meat handling/processing regulations that does not mention or consider ritual slaughtering.

Perhaps countries ought to be sorted according to criteria as such? --Sparviere (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Freedom: The Right to Practise Shehitah does exactly this - goes back to the debates to discover the motives.

The question came up in the Swedish article (Skäktning) and this was the reply of one administrator:

You worte. " 2)’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ’it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ’whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ’which is to be master – that’s all.’ RPSM 29 november 2007 kl. 12.52 (CET)

3):::Wvs, det är beklagligt att du finner mig (eller åtminstone min diskussionsteknik) förvirrad. Det är förvisso sant att vi inte har någon lag som uttryckligen förbjuder skäktning i Sverige. De allra flesta länder i Europa och Amerika gör emellertid undantag för just skäktning (enligt den definition du angav ovan). Det gör inte Sverige. Lagen (utan det undantag som är vanligt i andra länder) togs i slutet på 1930-talet. Många, framför allt judiska, kritiker har pekat på de antisemitiska strömningar som bland annat låg bakom liknande lagar i Tyskland. Att utifrån detta dra slutsatsen att vi de facto har ett förbud mot skäktning i Sverige tycker jag inte är så långsökt, inte heller att det finns skäl att misstänka att antisemitiska strömningar hade ett visst inflytande. RPSM (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what it all means, it seems to be along the lines of my claims. I am not familiar with the Swedish legislation, but when it comes to Norway, it is impossible to know weather Antisemitism influenced the lawmakers, but if it did, it was at best marginal. The main reason for the ban WAS NOT Antisemitism, and that is what we have to work with. In Germany in the 30ies, and in German occupied territories 1938-45, Antisemitism was of course the driving factor. To assume and attribute Antisemitism to the Norwegian and Swedish legislation is to look for an evidence you would like to be there, and it is simply both irrelevant and unscientific. In other words, it is wrong to claim the Antisemitism was a part of it, since ritual slaughtering is NOT BANNED, but only DE FACTO impossible (on a commercial scale) due to regulations that meant to curb other aspects of the slaughtering process. Don't you find it somewhat peculiar that if Antisemitism was an important part of this, they went through the trouble of coming up with these incredibly complicated and technical regulation, just to ban ritual slaughtering? --Sparviere (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good and informative, and as far as I can tell, the research is sound. However, it begs one question – is the author looking for and submitting evidence just to support his hypothesis? I cannot tell. The article is rich in argument, but poor in objectivity. I do not doubt for a second that Anti-Semitic individuals and sentiments were involved in this, as the author also makes abundantly clear. However, the author makes little effort to reverse the question and look at the process under the light of sanitary, hygienic and animal welfare concerns. Therefore, three questions remain unanswered to me:

Was Anti-Semitism a driving force in this legislation, or was this legislation primarily related to sanitary and hygienic matters?

Was Anti-Semitism the norm among the members of these committees, or was it simply tainted by the extremist viewpoint of selected members?

Was this an attempt to ban ritual slaughtering by means of sanitary and animal welfare legislation, or was ritual slaughtering simply affected by a piece of legislation that was aimed at something else?

Please consider this statement: Personally, I oppose bans on ritual slaughtering, and would like to see legislation changed wherever this is the case. Does that mean I am in favor of ritual slaughtering? No, I am not, because in my opinion, any kind of dietary restrictions not scientifically or medically founded, are silly and unnecessary.

Does the latter statement make me Anti-Semitic? Of course not. It only goes to show that my political and philosophical views do not necessarily match my rational and pragmatic views. However, this is not a problem, since they are either both wrong, or both right, as they both pertain to me.

Consider this:

1) If the basis for the legislation was Anti-Semitism, it means that even politicians from parties that openly opposed Anti-Semitism and right wing sentiments had be “secretly” Anti-Semitic for the legislation to be passed. (I find this hard to believe)

2)In the Twenties and Thirties Anti-Semitism was rampant and there would be little need for a politician to hide his Anti-Semitic viewpoints, and instead go to great lengths to disguise it as a piece of sanitary/hygienic/animal welfare legislation. (It would be unnecessary)

3)In Scandinavia and in Norway in particular, communities that required ritual slaughtering were both small and relatively unknown. In terms of animal husbandry, these groups were virtually non-existent.

4)If a legal text stipulates HOW a procedure is supposed to be performed, but does not mention how it is NOT supposed to be performed, is it then a BAN?

5)There can be no doubt that Anti-Semitic individuals influenced this legislation, but is there sufficient evidence to claim they influenced it adequately to deem this legislation Anti-Semitic? (because if it is Anti-Semitic, it is a ban)

--Sparviere (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you recent comments to my talk page, but I still feel we come short of answering the questions that need answering:

1) Was Antisemitism the driving force in this legislation, or was this legislation primarily related to sanitary and hygienic matters?

2) Was Antisemitism the norm among the members of these committees, or was it simply tainted by the extremist viewpoint of selected members?

3) Was this an attempt to ban ritual slaughtering by means of sanitary and animal welfare legislation, or was ritual slaughtering simply affected by a piece of legislation that was aimed at something else?

4) If the basis for the legislation was Anti-Semitism, does it mean that even politicians from parties that openly opposed Anti-Semitism and right wing sentiments voted for an Anti-Semitic to be passed?

5) In the Twenties and Thirties Anti-Semitism was rampant. Did a politician need to hide his Anti-Semitic viewpoints by disguising a piece of legislation as sanitary/hygienic/animal welfare legislation?

6) In Scandinavia, Norway in particular, communities that required ritual slaughtering were both small and relatively unknown, and in terms of animal husbandry virtually non-existent. What motifs suggests then that this legislation was Anti-Semitically motivated?

7) If a legal text stipulates HOW a procedure is supposed to be performed, but does not mention how it is NOT supposed to be performed, can it then be called a BAN?

8) There can be no doubt that Anti-Semitic individuals influenced this legislation, but is there sufficient evidence to claim they influenced it adequately to deem this legislation Anti-Semitic?

I agree that an effective ban is in place in Scandinavia, but I strongly believe this is not the same as a legal ban. A similar case is taking place right now in California, where a dairy company was barred from selling unpasteurized milk in selected stores, since US health and sanitary legislation stipulates that dailry product have to be pasteurized before being made commercially available. If fact, this is the EXACT SAME dilemma we are facing in the debate concerning ritual slaughtering. It is NOT against US law to drink unpasteurized milk, and it is not illegal to produce it. Nowhere in law does it say that you cannot sell unpasteurized milk, because the law does not concern itself with that. The law simply says that dairy products have to be pasteurized upon being made commercially available.

To mo, there is a BIG difference here, which is why I have become involved in this particular matter.--Sparviere (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal welfare

Before the Second World War, religious slaughter was tolerated in Europe, except for three countries (Switzerland in 1893, Norway in 1930, Sweden in 1938). Religious slaughter without stunning was prohibited in several countries in Europe from 1936 to 1944 under the occupation of Nazi Germany (Germany in 1936, Poland and Italy in 1938, then in the majority of the other European countries according to the Nazi Germany occupation progress between 1940 and 1944).^[1]^[2]^[3]

The ritual method of slaughter as practiced in Islam and Judaism has been described as inhumane by animal welfare organisations in the U.K. and the U.S.A., who have stated that it "causes severe suffering to animals."^[4]^[5] These some animal welfare organisations hope to forbid the right to practise the ritual slaughter without stunning in Non-islamic countries.

In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.^[6] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering.^[7]

Let us not get carried away here! This is not a debate on whether animal welfare groups are right. It does not matter what kind of evidence can be produced today, and what kind of methods can be applied today. Carl Sagan once said that we cannot measure the past by the standards of today any more than we one day can measured by the standards of the future. Some will argue ritual slaughtering is animal cruelty, some say it is not. In this particular article we need to focus on the legislation. --Sparviere (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent advisory group, concluded that the way halal and kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."

Halal and kosher butchers deny that their method of killing animals is cruel and expressed anger over the FAWC recommendation.^[5]

Majid Katme of the Muslim Council of Britain also disagreed, stating that "it's a sudden and quick haemorrhage. A quick loss of blood pressure and the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain."^[5]

In April 2008, the Food and Farming minister in the United Kingdom, Lord Rooker, stated that halal and kosher meat should be labeled when it is put on sale, so that members of the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have been bled to death. He was quoted as saying, "I object to the method of slaughter ... my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after, and slaughtered in the most humane way possible." The RSPCA supported Lord Rooker's views."^[8]

The same years, the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing has published ASIDCOM’s Bibliographical Report on Religious Slaughter and the Welfare of Animals, as a contribution within the framework of a meeting on animals and society organized in the first half of the year 2008.^[9] This report quotes scientific papers and French veterinary PhD which support the equality or even possible superiority of religious slaughter to other methods of slaughter.^[2] This report quotes in particular the Ph.D work of Dr Pouillaude which concludes by: "religious slaughter would thus be a less stressing mode of slaughter. Conclusions of all the scientific experiments converge towards a firmly supported certainty: properly carried out, religious slaughter is the most humane way because it leads to less trauma to animals to be killed to be consumed for its meat".^[2]^[10]

For the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Humane Society International, "the animals that are slaughtered according to kosher and halal should be securely restrained, particularly the head and neck, before cutting the throat" as "movements (during slaughter) results in a poor cut, bad bleeding, slow loss of consciousness, if at all, and pain."^[11]

In Europe, the DIALREL project has occurred in order to address issues relating to religious slaughter by encouraging dialogue between the both Muslim and Jewish communities and a few scientists (mainly veterinaries) as well as gathering and dissemination of information.^[12] Started the 1st November 2006, this European project has been finished in summer 2010. Both the Muslim and Jewish communities were frustrated with the process of dialogue because of pre-conceived notions in the scientific community.^[13]

References

^ Nizard-Benchimol, Sophie (1997). L’Economie du Croire. Une anthropologie des pratiques alimentaires juives en modernité (Ph.D. thesis). Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Benefits of religious slaughter without stunning for animals and humans (2010)". ASIDCOM. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
^ F BERGEAUD-BLACKLER (2004). "Nouveaux enjeux autour de l'abattage rituel musulman : une perspective européenne (Emerging around the Muslim ritual slaughter: a European perspective)" (PDF). Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales, n° 73, page 11.
^ Blackstock, Colin (2003-05-15). "Halal killing may be banned". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
^ Schulze W, Schultze-Petzold H, Hazem AS, Gross R. Experiments for the objectification of pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (“ritual cutting”) slaughter procedures for sheep and calves. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 1978 Feb 5;85(2):62-6. English translation by Dr Sahib M. Bleher
^ Das Bundesverfassungsgericht
^ "CIWF Halal and kosher meat should not be slipped in to food chain, says minister
^ Contribution of the meeting on animals and society (Meeting organised in 2008 by the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing)
^ Pouillaude-Bardon, Sylvie (1992). L’abattage rituel en France (The ritual slaughter in France) (Veterinary Ph.D. thesis). National Veterinary College of Toulouse (France).
^ Guideline for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock, Religious or ritual slaughter, "?". "?".
^ DIAREL Website, Encouraging Dialogue on issues of Religious Slaughter
^ ASIDCOM (2010-03-03). "Interview with Dr. Joe M. Regenstein : "A live worth living"". ASIDCOM.

Kakayee (note)

A Kurdish tribe http://www.dangoor.com/TheScribe37.pdf

166:

Does the latter statement make me Anti-Semitic? Of course not. It only goes to show that my political and philosophical views do not necessarily match my rational and pragmatic views. However, this is not a problem, since they are either both wrong, or both right, as they both pertain to me. ::Does the latter statement make me Anti-Semitic? Of course not. It only goes to show that my political and philosophical views do not necessarily match my rational and pragmatic views. However, this is not a problem, since they are either both wrong, or both right, as they both pertain to me.

-Consider this:

1)If the basis for the legislation was Anti-Semitism, it means that even politicians from parties that openly opposed Anti-Semitism and right wing sentiments had be “secretly” Anti-Semitic for the legislation to be passed. (I find this hard to believe)

1) If the basis for the legislation was Anti-Semitism, it means that even politicians from parties that openly opposed Anti-Semitism and right wing sentiments had be “secretly” Anti-Semitic for the legislation to be passed. (I find this hard to believe) 2) In the Twenties and Thirties Anti-Semitism was rampant and there would be little need for a politician to hide his Anti-Semitic viewpoints, and instead go to great lengths to disguise it as a piece of sanitary/hygienic/animal welfare legislation. (It would be unnecessary)

2)In the Twenties and Thirties Anti-Semitism was rampant and there would be little need for a politician to hide his Anti-Semitic viewpoints, and instead go to great lengths to disguise it as a piece of sanitary/hygienic/animal welfare legislation. (It would be unnecessary)

3) In Scandinavia and in Norway in particular, communities that required ritual slaughtering were both small and relatively unknown. In terms of animal husbandry, these groups were virtually non-existent. + ::3)In Scandinavia and in Norway in particular, communities that required ritual slaughtering were both small and relatively unknown. In terms of animal husbandry, these groups were virtually non-existent.

4) If a legal text stipulates HOW a procedure is supposed to be performed, but does not mention how it is NOT supposed to be performed, is it then a BAN?

4)If a legal text stipulates HOW a procedure is supposed to be performed, but does not mention how it is NOT supposed to be performed, is it then a BAN?

5)There can be no doubt that Anti-Semitic individuals influenced this legislation, but is there sufficient evidence to claim they influenced it adequately to deem this legislation Anti-Semitic? (because if it is Anti-Semitic, it is a ban) --Sparviere