Now that a little time has elapsed since the British
government has published its Shechita proposals made by the
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) it is appropriate to make
an in-depth study of "what's on offer."
At the onset, one must acknowledge the government's overall
intention to reject FAWC's recommendation to ban shechita.
That is encouraging.
But, at the same time one must read the small print of the
government's response, which could jeopardize the practice of
shechita and effectively cause it to be outlawed.
The basic cause for concern is that, contrary to the USA, the
UK government is not of a mind to accept shechita as a
humane form of animal slaughter, but merely grants an
exemption to Jews and Muslims to slaughter animals without
prior stunning. This, in itself, casts a slur on the practice
of shechita, in addition to which it flouts the
European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines freedom
of religion.
A particular slight in the government's response is the
assertion that "on balance, animals (especially cattle)
slaughtered without pre-stunning are likely to experience
very significant pain and distress"(my italics).
What an outright condemnation of a time-hallowed religious
practice, without offering a single shred of published
scientific evidence to subordinate so speculative a claim!
Indeed, there is ample published scientific evidence that
shechita is at least as humane -- and in the view of
many scientists, more so -- as any other method of animal
slaughter.
It is interesting that Dr. Dani Rothschild of Switzerland, in
an expert analysis of the shechita problem, quotes a
renowned scientist as stating: "I would be pleased if my
own death would be so swift and painless as is the case of
death by shechita."
The scope of this quote limits me from going into the full
details of the concerns which the government's response have
aroused.
So here are just a few snippets of additional points:
The government recommends "progress on a voluntary basis" to
implement post-shechita stunning. This is quite
unacceptable as it effectively demolishes the scientific
assertion that the shechita cut causes the animal's
instantaneous loss of consciousness.
FAWC maintains that bedikas hassimonim, the
shochet's post-shechita internal investigation
of the animal, causes pain to the animal, which is a false
assumption, as the animal has by then lost consciousness and
all feeling of pain.
The government also concurs with FAWC that the efficiency of
the casting pen should be re-examined, despite the fact that
the pen currently in use is exactly the type requested by
FAWC some ten years ago. A change to another pen is an
unreasonable request and will incur very substantial
expenditure. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that
the use of the current pen is detrimental to animal
welfare.
LABELING: This should be strongly objected to as it is not a
matter of animal welfare. Moreover, if it were to be
introduced, it should similarly apply to meat of the large
numbers of mis-stunned animals which suffer great agony in
abattoirs where non-kosher meat is manufactured.
What all this emphasizes is the fact that a great deal of
work remains to be done to convince the government, the
public and the media of the humanness of shechita and
of the fundamental right for Jews to continue practicing it
without hindrance.
Shechita UK is the organization which comprises all Anglo-
Jewish organizations dealing with shechita. It
deserves the community's unstinting moral and financial
support.
