"The Dutch government is close to banning Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter of livestock, raising the ire of religious groups in Europe."

"Both Kosher and Halal slaughtering methods require that an animal be bled to death without being stunned first. Most livestock animals are stunned with a device such as a captive bolt gun that renders the animal senseless before it is killed."

"Groups advocating for animal welfare in Europe support the ban because they say that killing an animal without stunning it first is cruel."

"Jewish and Islamic groups make the argument that there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that ritual slaughter is more cruel than the standard European method of stunning before slaughter. They say that this is an infringement on their rights to practice their religion, while proponents of the bill say that the welfare of animals trumps religious practices."

"The idea that slaughter is ever "humane" or kind is and has always been a myth. Slaughter is slaughter; flesh is flesh"

"At best the advocates of this ban are misguided in their belief that banning ritual slaughter will mean less misery for the animals killed, at worst they're pushing a thinly-veiled racist agenda that uses concern for animals as a tool to paint immigrants and religious minorities as cold-hearted and bloodthirsty."

So what to think of this?

Is there a difference between stunning before slaughter or not?

Is the call for banning animal welfare or a racist agenda?

Should we be eating domestic animals or not?






http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-w...veiled-racism/