NZFOI: Nathan Lewin, a distinguished US Attorney, says that the Kosher Slaughter advocates neglected to include key evidence that would have strengthened their case, after an European Court ruled against them.
Neither this history [i.e. the evidence presented in the US] nor the scientifically supported proposition that shechita’s “simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument” is as effective as stunning was presented to the European court.
It is clear from the reasoning articulated in the opinion that no one gave the European court the evidence that was heard by the American congressional committees. The European court assumed that animal welfare, which it recognized as a permissible legislative goal, required stunning before slaughter.
It held that stunning only affected “one aspect of the specific ritual act of slaughter and that act of slaughter is not, by contrast, prohibited as such.” This limited restriction, it said, “is appropriate for achieving the objective of promoting animal welfare.”
Speak Your Mind