Dutch hypocrisy

The Dutch government has plans to ban kosher animal slaughter.

By BRENDAN GALLAGHER
Kosher? (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem)
Kosher?
(photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem)
According to biblical history, if there is one thing the Jewish people do not mind, it is a bit of covenanting. Last month, courtesy of the Dutch government, representatives of the Dutch Jewish umbrella group Nederlands Israëlitisch Kerkgenootschap (NIK) were given the chance to emulate their biblical heroes.
Hank Bleker, Dutch agriculture minister, has ordained that the Jewish people are allowed to eat kosher meat – only if they adhere to restrictions that ensure minimal animal suffering. A sense of déjà vu may have struck those who are familiar with the origins of kashrut law, but who doesn’t like a historical re-enactment?
The compromise comes almost a year after a bill seeking to ban slaughter without pre-stunning passed the Dutch lower house.
The bill, which would effectively ban Jewish and Islamic religious slaughter, easily passed the lower house but appears set to be rejected by the senate.
According to news reports, it has been a divisive debate pitting animal rights – which is increasingly accepted in the Netherlands – against the core Dutch value of religious freedom. As a result, many parties have been split down the middle.
The framing of this debate is unfortunate and inevitable.
It is inevitable because a debate that hinges on religious practices – which affect at most eight percent of the population – does not command debate from the unaffected masses. Add to this the fact that the part of the debate that concerns Dutch Muslims – the vast majority of this percentage – takes place within a much larger anti-Islam narrative. In such a situation, religious groups are forced to play the freedom of religion card.
It is unfortunate because by framing the debate in this manner, the religious are cast in a false light. There is a scene in The Devil’s Advocate, where a man is arrested while ritually slaughtering a goat in a dingy basement. The man, who is later revealed to have a questionable relationship with the devil, is collecting the goat’s blood to use in a religious ceremony. Charged with health code violations, his wily lawyer gets him acquitted using a freedom of religion defense.
For people who are unfamiliar with the technicalities of religious slaughter, the current debate could appear similar; a sacrificial custom, out of step with modern society, hiding under the cloak of freedom of religion. The two methods in question, schechita (kosher ritual slaughter) and dhabihah (Islamic ritual slaughter) are routinely lumped together under the poor translation of ritual slaughter. The concept of ritual slaughter evokes images of alters, chanting, and burnt offerings, rather than what these methods actually are; killing and preparing animals for human consumption in accordance with particular belief systems.
This latest covenant has proven that these methods, when practiced properly, can and do exist within accepted animal welfare standards. However, let's separate schechita and dhabihah. These are two different methods and by lumping them together, we impair the nuance required to shed the cloak of religious freedom.
Let's focus on schechita.
For this covenant to be accepted by the NIK it must conform to Jewish law. For schechita, the covenant needn’t be much of a stretch. The covenant requires the supervision of a government-approved vet, but this was already the case for schechita performed in the Netherlands. If the animal is still alive 40 seconds after the cut, the vet will step in and kill it.
US Cattle studies have shown that, whilst the time it takes for the animal to become insensate can vary depending on handling and restraint techniques, in the best test group, loss of sensibility was reached within 30 seconds 100 percent of the time, with the average time until loss of sensibility being 22 seconds. Times are less for smaller animals such as sheep and goats.
These studies were conducted by Dr. Temple Grandin, professor of animal science at Colorado State University, using restraints that she had designed.  As an expert on animal behavior and consultant to the livestock industry on animal welfare and livestock handling, Dr. Grandin has designed some of the world’s leading humane livestock handling techniques and facilities. She is also a philosophical leader in the animal welfare movement.
She was listed in the “heroes” category of Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world and, notably, has been awarded a Proggy award in the ‘visionary’ category by PETA – a group infamous for their spirited support for animal welfare.
Dr. Grandin has worked with the kosher industry for 30 years ensuring humane standards for kosher slaughtering. She separates the issues of restraint of the animal during slaughter and the stunning of the animal, highlighting the importance of the method of restraint. She has designed humane restraint methods which conform to kashrut law – many of which are currently in use in kosher slaughterhouses.
Dr. Grandin has observed that: “When kosher slaughter of cattle is done well, there is almost no reaction from the animal when the throat is cut. Flicking my hand near the animal’s face caused a bigger reaction. When the cut is done well, 90 percent or more of the cattle will collapse and become unconscious within 30 seconds.”
The opponents of religious slaughter rely on studies such as a 2010 study conducted at Massey University in New Zealand which measured EEG (brain waves) to measure pain levels when an animal's throat is cut. However, these studies have not been undertaken using the precise standards of schechita.
Dr Grandin, responding in an opinion piece on kosher slaughter, points out that the knife they used was not comparable to the chalaf (surgically sharp instrument) used in schechita.“A knife that is too short will cause gouging of the wound,” she writes. “The results of this study clearly show that the knife they used was not acceptable. To this date, a similar study has not been done with the special long kosher knife.”
To underestimate the importance of the chalaf is to misunderstand the spirit of schechita. The chalaf is symbolic of detail and engagement. It is razor sharp and checked after every cut for any imperfections by running a fingernail along the blade. Any blemishes, which could catch and cause pain, render the blade unfit for use. The length of the blade must exceed the width of the animal's neck by at least a half, allowing a smooth, uninterrupted sweep that, at once, severs the trachea and oesophagus and the major veins and arteries. There are five rules prohibiting delay, pressing, digging, slipping, and tearing. Violating any of these rules renders the meat un-kosher.
These high levels of detail are grounded in concern for animal welfare. In fact, Jewish philosophy is steeped in pioneering concerns for animal welfare. And at no time in history have these concerns been more important than now. The mechanically operated stunning devices that in 1929 ushered in the ‘humane’ era of slaughter were part of an industrialization of agriculture which has led to inordinate amounts of animal suffering.
All of the countries in which this debate is taking place have high levels of factory farming. The Netherlands is one of the most animal intensive farming countries in the world with over 200 ‘mega’ factory farms.
In factory farms, highly intelligent animals are kept in conditions so cramped they cannot turn around, with the high levels of stress which frequently lead to cannibalism. To mitigate livestock damage, animals have their tails cut off and teeth pulled out. Chickens are debeaked alive. None of these vile actions are performed with any sort of pain relief.
In this context, to debate the seconds or minutes that surround an animal’s death, after a lifetime of misery, is ridiculous and hypocritical. To ban all religious slaughter, even though it can be performed with accepted humane standards, is outright discrimination.
A conversation about the ethical treatment of animals needs to take place in all communities. In kashrut law, the Jewish community already has the discursive framework to have this conversation. In fact, it commands it. 
The writer works for The Jewish Thinker (www.jewishthinker.org.), a leading site for opinion pieces on matters affecting Israel and the Jewish people.


Related Tags
Dutch