Quote:

6 November 2011 Last updated at 04:05 GMT Help Next month the Dutch parliament is expected to approve a ban on halal and kosher methods of slaughtering animals for food. Those who proposed the ban say it is simply an issue of animal welfare, but it received strong support from the right-wing Freedom Party. Many see it as a violation of their religious freedom, and among the Jewish community it is a worrying echo of a similar ban brought in by Hitler. Anna Holligan reports from The Hague.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15610142


I like it.  While there's nothing wrong with the method itself, it's good to see some 'back-door' solutions to the muslim problem.  

It's good to see the Dutch advocating animal welfare policies. If we had the Freedom Party here we wouldn't need the Greens.

So what exactly is being banned?

A bill which would ban halal and kosher slaughter methods has passed through the Dutch parliament, despite opposition from Muslim and Jewish groups who say a ban would impinge on their religious freedoms.

The bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by parliamentarians on Wednesday, still has to pass through the Dutch senate, which is unlikely before the summer recess.

The Dutch cabinet said on Monday that the law may be unenforceable in its current form due to the ambiguity of a last-minute amendment that says religious slaughter licenses can be granted if they can "prove" that it does not cause animals more pain than stunning.

If the Netherlands outlaws procedures that make meat kosher for Jews or halal for Muslims, it would be the second country after New Zealand to do so in recent years. Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland also ban religious slaughter.

Henk Blekers, the Dutch deputy secretary of economic affairs and agriculture, said that the cabinet would "look at how it fits with freedom of religion", citing the European Convention on Human Rights.

Both halal and kosher slaughter rules prescribe that animals' throats must be cut swiftly with a razor-sharp knife while they are still conscious, so that they bleed to death quickly.

'Animal rights over religious rights'

But the Party for Animals, the main proponents of the proposed law, argue that sparing animals needless pain and distress outweighs religious groups' rights to follow their respective slaughter practices.

"They (livestock) stay conscious for up to 5 minutes. They lose a lot of blood and they can choke on their own blood and the cut should be one time, but research shows that with kosher slaughter (they are cut) on average 3.5 times, and with halal 5.5 times," Karen Soeters of the Party for Animals told Al Jazeera.

But defenders of the practices said that religious slaughter methods could be humane.

"With halal, the animal can't be stressed. It can't see other animals being killed," Abdulhakim Chouaati of the Dutch Halal Feed and Food Authority told Al Jazeera.

"It's our religion we're practicing, and expressing religion in our modern industrial society is not a thing which is appealing to the public," Ronnie Eisenmann, a Jewish community leader in the Netherlands told Al Jazeera.

In an open letter pleading with parliament not to pass the law, a a committee of rabbis said the impact on the Jewish community would be "deep and large".

"Older Jews are frightened and wonder what the next law will be that limits their religious life. The youth are openly asking whether they still have a future that they can or want to build in the Netherlands," the letter continued.

Only Christian political parties opposed the ban, arguing that it undermined the country's tradition of religious tolerance.

A solid majority of Dutch voters say they support the ban, and parliament voted for it by a margin of 116 for to 30 against.

The support for the ban comes from an odd pairing of the political left, which sees religious slaughter as inhumane, and from the anti-immigration right, which says it is foreign and barbaric.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/06/201162945027320392.html

So the ban is on cutting an animal's throat while it is conscious?

What about people slaughtering their own animals - especially chickens?

What about fish?

What about hunting and fishing in general? I can't imagine NZ has banned hunting, so it seems a bit hypocritical to me to ban this.

freediver wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 7:45pm:

So the ban is on cutting an animal's throat while it is conscious? What about people slaughtering their own animals - especially chickens? What about fish?

hard to say, but the article did say it'd be 'unenforecable'.  i didn't klnow NZ had already done so, so it might be worth looking at how they've done it.
But, those who argued for it on 'animal rights' grounds probably don't care about the details, and I don't think it's got so much suppport on animal rights, but rather as covert anti-muslim legislation.  If the EU isn't going to let them keep their local culture by having a say on immigration, they can at least make their country a bit less muslim-friendly, so they might go to some other part of europe instead.

I think this was in June. In wonder why the media are bringing it up again now.


Good questions, FD.

It's going to be very difficult to enforce.

Quote:

New Zealand has become the fourth country to outlaw Jewish ritual slaughtering, authorities said Sunday, after Iceland, Norway, and Sweden took similar measures in the past. Under the newly instated Animal Welfare Commercial Slaughter Code, announced by Agriculture Minister David Carter, commercially killed animals would have to be stunned before slaughter, making kosher slaughter, or shchita, illegal, according to the Jewish Australian News service. According to the report, while the new regulations are to take immediate effect, kosher beef will be able to be imported into New Zealand. Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence, the former leader of the Auckland Hebrew Congregation, told the Jewish Australian News that "there is a strong body of veterinary and animal welfare research which continues to confirm shechita as a humane method of slaughter of the highest standard." Minister Cater reached the contentious decision, despite the fact that the report compiled by The National Animal Welfare Advisory Council, on which Carter based his decision, stated that "that the rights of the New Zealand Jewish community to practice its religious beliefs accorded by the Bill of Rights Act must be balanced against animal welfare considerations." The Australian news agency added that the report also said that other alternatives short of an outright ban on shechita could be made available to the government.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/new-zealand-outlaws-kosher-slaughter-1.293017

Quote:

If the EU isn't going to let them keep their local culture by having a say on immigration

Can you elaborate please? To me it seems this would be the more reasonable approach. It's not like they are going to starve the Muslims out. On the other hand, refusing immigration to people who oppose democracy and human rights seems perfectly reasonable.

freediver wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Quote: If the EU isn't going to let them keep their local culture by having a say on immigration Can you elaborate please? To me it seems this would be the more reasonable approach. It's not like they are going to starve the Muslims out. On the other hand, refusing immigration to people who oppose democracy and human rights seems perfectly reasonable.

the schengen agreement allows passport free travel between EU countries and it has been starting to cause tensions among several member nations as illegal immigrants swarm in, especially since gaddafi was ousted.   Some countries have been considering reinstating border controls, but i'ts been resisted by the (unelected) EU, which overrides national law.


EU BANS BORDER CONTROLS

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/270465/EU-bans-border-controls

... wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 9:37pm: Quote: If the EU isn't going to let them keep their local culture by having a say on immigration Can you elaborate please? To me it seems this would be the more reasonable approach. It's not like they are going to starve the Muslims out. On the other hand, refusing immigration to people who oppose democracy and human rights seems perfectly reasonable. the schengen agreement allows passport free travel between EU countries and it has been starting to cause tensions among several member nations as illegal immigrants swarm in, especially since gaddafi was ousted.   Some countries have been considering reinstating border controls, but i'ts been resisted by the (unelected) EU, which overrides national law. EU BANS BORDER CONTROLS http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/270465/EU-bans-border-controls

Travel is not the same as immigration.

freediver wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 10:12pm:

... wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 10:07pm: freediver wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 9:37pm: Quote: If the EU isn't going to let them keep their local culture by having a say on immigration Can you elaborate please? To me it seems this would be the more reasonable approach. It's not like they are going to starve the Muslims out. On the other hand, refusing immigration to people who oppose democracy and human rights seems perfectly reasonable. the schengen agreement allows passport free travel between EU countries and it has been starting to cause tensions among several member nations as illegal immigrants swarm in, especially since gaddafi was ousted.   Some countries have been considering reinstating border controls, but i'ts been resisted by the (unelected) EU, which overrides national law. EU BANS BORDER CONTROLS http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/270465/EU-bans-border-controls Travel is not the same as immigration.

It is when you're in europe illegally to begin with.  the interior nations are upset that southern and eatsern eourpean countries aren't doing enough to kepp their outer borders secure, and once illegals set foot in Europe, they can go wherever they please and disappear.


Quote:

The Netherlands and Finland on Thursday (22 September) vetoed Romania and Bulgaria's bid to join the border-free Schengen area, a move the Polish EU presidency said represented a "sad conclusion about mutual trust among member states."

http://euobserver.com/22/113707




Quote:

Tuesday, September 6, 2011 "ITALY, Spain ... Here we come!", cries Ermondo from Agadez in northern Niger. He, like the rest of West Africa's hopeful migrants, is celebrating the fall of the Muammar Gaddafi regime as their passport to a new life in Europe. "Gaddafi blocked the route and now he's gone, we're off!," said the 29-year-old who wants to carve a music career in Italy. The fugitive leader stopped all cooperation with the European Union on the issue of illegal immigration via Libya back in March as he fought the rebel uprising. Now hundreds are taking advantage of his toppling and the ensuing disorder to plot their escape route. "His fall seems to have opened the gates to Europe for Sub-Saharan immigrants fleeing poverty at home," said an Agadez customs officer. Meanwhile police in the city are turning a blind eye to the exodus.

http://bruneitimes.com.bn/features/2011/09/06/gaddafis-fall-unleashes-immigrant-race-europe

Anyway, it is just a theory.  maybe theres a connection. maybe theres not.