Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Does the animal die from loss of blood? and where is this sourced from?[edit]

Article states: when explaining shechita 

The animal must be alive when its throat is cut and die from loss of blood.

Where does this information come from? I believe that it is a contentious statement held to be true by the animal protection societies as well as anti-Semites since the 1890s, and contested by Jewish authorities as well as some scientists (e.g. Alexander Dembo)

Stephen S. Eisenman The Cry of Nature

...which may explain why the BVA's president-elect, John Blackwell, judged it a more alluring target than even the government's badger cull.

Blackwell's suggestion that the UK "may well" have to follow Denmark's example if British Jews and Muslims refuse to allow animals to be stunned before they are killed did not please the groups concerned. Nor did his assertion that cutting the throat of an animal without stunning it caused prolonged and unnecessary suffering.

"They will feel the cut," he said. "They will feel the massive injury of the tissues to the neck. They will perceive the aspiration of blood they will breathe in before they lose consciousness."

Although the BVA is a seasoned campaigner on the issue – and has also urged the government to label non-stunned meat to alert consumers to its origins – Blackwell's intervention has met with a swift and furious response from Jewish and Muslim groups, who argue their long-practised methods are completely humane. They have also hinted his comments could be used by far-right groups to stir up community tensions.

"He has made the extraordinarily misleading statement that what Jews do and Muslims do is to slit animals' throats and allow them to bleed to death," said Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. "That is unbelievably misleading because he must know that the way the animal is killed is to cut its throat so as to bring about an immediate and irreversible loss of sensation and death."

Quoted from: Halal, shechita and the politics of animal slaughter RPSM (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[edit]

This part has one source and makes some bold claims. It states that "In those countries that have signed the convention, and, at the same time have enacted laws that effectively ban ritual slaughter have a conflict between the Convention and the law." without any source making that claim. I would think that the nations making having "effectively ban ritual slaughter" would claim that the ban is for animal welfare and can be covered by the second part. This the whole line of arguments springs from the reasoning the two laws are conflicted it should be removed or changed. It also it points to the intent of the lawmakers that made the ban and then reasons that since it was the Nazi occupiers that demanded it so the law is unlawful, but says not of what country they mean.It should all be removed or properly sourced. 31.45.90.79 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not logical[edit]

Religious slaughter practice Part of a series on Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) Al-Fiqh Ritual[show] Political[show] Family[show] Criminal[show] Etiquette[show] Economic[show] Hygiene[hide] SexualToiletTaharahIhramWuduMasahGhuslTayammumMiswakNajis Dietary DhabihahAlcoholPork Comparison with kashrut Military[show] Islamic studies vte Main article: ritual slaughter See also: shechita, dhabiha, and comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws According to Jewish law [17] and Muslim law, slaughter of cattle and poultry is carried out with a single cut to the throat. However, other Jewish and Islamic authorities have stated that stunning is compatible with religious law.[18] The practice of post-cut stunning, meaning that stunning is applied after the animal gets the throat cut, is regarded as a "middle ground".[19]

Reference[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/world/europe/halal-kosher-humane-slaughter.html RPSM (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter&oldid=1208134314"