Whilst behind-closed-door negotiations are in progress
between British Jewish community leaders and government
ministers in an effort to retain the status quo on the
Shechita procedures in the United Kingdom, it seems
appropriate to reflect on some fundamental issues of animal
welfare.
It needs no further repetition that the Torah is quite
specific on the need to avoid any type of cruelty or even
lack of kindness to animals. It is equally clear, and needs
no repetition, that no aspect of the shechita process
causes pain to the animal and that the shochet's
incision has the effect of immediate and irreversible
stunning. This has been confirmed over and over again by
eminent scientists in this country and abroad.
What bothers me is the motive of those who, year after year,
cast aspersions on the humaneness of shechita and seem
to cover their deep-rooted prejudices by waving the flag of
animal welfare.
Are the anti-shechita protagonists of the Farm Animal
Welfare Council (FAWC) really concerned with every aspect of
animal welfare — or is their concern limited to
shechita?
Have these anti-shechita protagonists ever taken their
families to the zoo and seen how thousands of animals —
large and small — are cooped-up in cages; whereas, they
should be free to roam around their natural habitat in the
wilds of Africa and elsewhere?
Isn't that a shocking display of animal cruelty enjoyed by
millions of zoo visitors all over the world?
Or have the animal-loving grandees of FAWC never taken their
families to Horseguards Parade and enjoyed — yes,
enjoyed — the sight of scores of horses being
regimented by screaming sergeant majors which, despite the
horses natural instinct of obedience, is bound to cause
distress?
And how about the horse-racing "sport" — a huge
industry in the UK — which drives horses to utter
exhaustion. Isn't that a classic case of cruelty to
animals?
I was recently invited to attend a huge police display in the
center of London which, among other features, showed scores
of police personnel sitting on horseback in a stationary
position for some three hours in scorching summer heat. No
food, no water — just standing at attention whilst on
other parts of the parade ground dozens of police officers
were carried away by paramedics as they fainted due to the
strain which they had to endure.
Is there a shred of evidence that this sort of animal
exploitation causes no pain, distress or anxiety to
animals?
My question therefore is: when, in the FAWC dictionary, is
animal cruelty, really animal cruelty? Is there an exemption
when cruelty causes enjoyment to human beings?
Unfortunately, this is an aspect which has never been vented
in public debate. Discussions with ministers invariably
center around the scientific aspect of alleged cruelty to
animals when it relates to shechita for Jews (or
halal for Moslems).
Am I oversensitive when I suggest that there is more to the
anti-shechita campaign than the eye can see?
I get an agonizing feeling that there is a fundamental flaw
in the current debate. Indeed it is not difficult to detect
that the Jewish community is up against an orchestrated
campaign which contains a combination of prejudice,
discrimination and even dishonesty.
