Ban religious slaughter in Europe
INTRODUCTION:
Dhabīḥah (or Zabiha, Arabic: ذَبِيْحَة ḏabīḥah IPA: [ðæˈbiːħɐ], "slaughter(noun)") is, in Islamic law, the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding camels, locusts, fish and most sea-life. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. It must be done with respect and compassion; avoiding as much as possible any animal pain or discomfort.
Thus, the slaughter itself is preceded by the words "In the name of Allah (Bismillah)". It is not regarded appropriate to use the phrase "Bismillah al Raḥmān Al Raḥīm" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) in this situation, because slaughtering is an act of subdual rather than mercy.
According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place. While blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died. If any other method is used its meat will not be halal.
This method adheres to Islamic law (it ensures the animal does not die by any of the Haraam methods) and helps to effectively drain blood from the animal. This may be important because the consumption of blood itself is forbidden in Islam, [Quran 2:173] however it is not clear that bleeding the animal removes all traces of blood from the carcass, so the meat may remain unclean. In fact it is stated by Islamic authorities that it is only necessary to drain 'most' of the blood from the animal.
Electrocution is frowned upon by many Muslims.
Stunning the animal with a bolt-gun, as is the standard practice in FDA-approved slaughtering houses, may cause instantaneous death. Muslims regard meat from such a slaughter to be haraam, considering such meat as carrion. It is for these reasons that there are ongoing questions and conversations within the North American Muslim community as to whether meat processed in these slaughter houses meet the standard of 'Halal' (as opposed to Ḏabīḥah). At center of this debate is the doubt as to whether this meat could qualify under the Allowed category of the food of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). The first consideration being that standard slaughtering methods could cause the animal to die in a way other than slaughter (death through exsanguination), and, secondly, given that the actual slaughter may not be performed by a member of any one of the three Abrahamic religions.
Debates still rage among Muslim jurists and the general Muslim population about whether or not stunning, anaesthetics, or other forms of inducing unconsciousness in the animal prior to slaughter are permissible as per Islam. Several halal food authorities have more recently permitted the use of a recently developed fail-safe system of head-only stunning where the shock is less painful and non-fatal, and where it is possible to reverse the procedure and revive the animal after the shock.
Controversies on animal welfare
Detractors of Ḏabīḥah halal, most notably some animal welfare groups, contend that this method of slaughter "causes severe suffering to animals" compared to when the animal is stunned before slaughter. In the United Kingdom, the government funded but independent advisory body Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that conventional Ḏabīḥah (along with Kashrut slaughter) without prior stunning be abolished. The FAWC chairwoman of the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, said, "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous". According to Dr Peter Jinman, president of the British Veterinary Association, vets are "looking at what is acceptable in the moral and ethical society we live." The London Board of Shehitah pointed out that several members of the FAWC were members of animal welfare groups and therefore not impartial in the matter.
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council says that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and it should be banned immediately. According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter." The UK government rejected its recommendations.
Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning. Even if the slaughterman is a master of his craft and the cut to the neck is clean, blood is carried to the brain by vertebral arteries and it keeps cattle conscious of their pain."
Source: Wikipedia
|
|
Two types of slaughter exist:
what are the differences?
There are two types of slaughter: slaughter with conventional stun, and ritual slaughter without stunning.
In conventional slaughter, the animal is stunned before being bled, causing loss of consciousness and insensitivity to pain.
In ritual slaughter, the animal is slaughtered in full consciousness, without numbness; their agony can last several minutes.
European regulation provides minimum protection of animals at slaughter:
The European Union directive, "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter", generally requires stunning before slaughter, but allows member states to allow exemptions for religious slaughter: "Each Contracting Party may authorize derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: – slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals ...".
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion which includes the freedom to manifest a religion or belief in, inter alia, practice and observance, subject only to such restrictions as are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society."
In May 2009 the European Parliament voted in favour of allowing ritual slaughter in member states.
What is the difference for the animals?
Non-stunned animals are slaughtered in vivid mindfulness, they experience unacceptable suffering. Their agony can last several minutes.
In the context of slaughter with stunning, the animal does not suffer at the time of slaughter, since there is loss of consciousness. Scientists have clearly stated: "Because of the serious animal welfare associated with slaughter without stunning, stunning should always be carried out before the slaughter."
In some countries, ritually killed animals are stunned before bleeding (Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand). The steps are then the same as for conventional slaughter.
The following video demonstrates the difference between slaughter with prior stunning, vs slaughter without stunning (ritual or religious slaughter)
While the animal in the first method is rendered unconscious immediately, the animals slaughtered without prior stunning experience their agony in full consciousness. You don't need to be an expert to see that this causes immense, unnecessary suffering to the animals.
FRANCE
Abattoir Charal in Metz
Upon entering, cattle have a direct view on the animals who are already suspended and where some are still struggling. In addition to seeing and smelling the blood, the animals see the suffering of their suspended congeners. All this is source of extreme stress and fear for the animals.
BELGIUM
Halal cattle slaughter line for up to 60 cattle per hour
Finland
Finland's law on slaughter dates from the 1930s and allows post-stunning thereby providing certain legislative protection for some forms of Muslim slaughter. Dhabhiha (halal slaughter) is practised in Finland, but there are not sufficient resources for Jewish slaughter, and all kosher meat is imported.
France
In Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, 27 June 2000, (App No. 27417/95) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a case involving a lawsuit by Glatt kosher slaughterers against a French law recognizing a non-Glatt association (the ACIP) as having the exclusive right to conduct Jewish ritual slaughter in France. The Court stated that ritual slaughter is a practice covered by the Article 9's guarantee of the right to manifest religious observance:
"It is not contested that ritual slaughter, as indeed its name indicates, constitutes a rite or "rite"...whose purpose is to provide Jews with meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with religious prescriptions, which is an essential aspect of practice of the Jewish religion... It follows that the applicant association can rely on Article 9 of the Convention with regard to the French authorities’ refusal to approve it, since ritual slaughter must be considered to be covered by a right guaranteed by the Convention, namely the right to manifest one's religion in observance, within the meaning of Article 9."
The Court then clarified the scope of Article 9, holding that it applies only to restrictions which would prevent consumers from being able to obtain ritually slaughtered meat:
"In the Court's opinion, there would be interference with the freedom to manifest one's religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable. But that is not the case. It is not contested that the applicant association can easily obtain supplies of "glatt" meat in Belgium. Furthermore, it is apparent from the written depositions and bailiffs’ official reports produced by the interveners that a number of butcher's shops operating under the control of the ACIP make meat certified "glatt" by the Beth Din available to Jews."
Thus, under the Court of Human Rights' interpretation (not unanimous) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Cha'are Shalom case, restrictions on ritual slaughter are permissible, but only if they do not prevent religious adherents from obtaining religiously slaughtered meat.
Germany
On January 15, 2002 the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides a broader guarantee of human rights in the area of religious freedom than the European Convention on Human Rights. In an appeal by a Turkish citizen who practiced Islamic ritual slaughter, the German court struck down Germany's former ban on ritual slaughter, holding that the German Basic Law's guarantee of religious freedom prohibited the German government from applying a law requiring stunning prior to slaughter to observant Muslims who practice ritual slaughter for religious reasons, and that the Basic Law's guarantee of religious freedom applies to slaughterers as well as consumers of meat. The German court held that under Article 2.1 of the German Basic Law, religious slaughterers have a distinct fundamental right to practice a religiously-recognized vocation. It also explained that merely permitting importation of ritually slaughtered meat is inadequate to protect the religious rights of individuals under Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the German Basic Law (Constitution) because personal contact is important to ensuring compliance with religious requirements. It held that an exemption from laws that conflicted with this was therefore mandated:
It is true that the consumption of imported meat makes such renunciation [of meat-eating] dispensable; however, due to the fact that in this case, personal contact with the butcher and the confidence that goes with such contact do not exist, the consumption of imported meat is fraught with the insecurity whether the meat really complies with the commandments of Islam....Under these circumstances, an exemption from the mandatory stunning of warm-blooded animals before their blood is drained cannot be precluded if the intention connected with this exemption is to facilitate, on the one hand, the practice of a profession with a religious character, which is protected by fundamental rights, and, on the other hand, the observation of religious dietary laws by the customers of the person practicing the occupation in question. Without such exemptions, the fundamental rights of those who want to perform slaughter without stunning as their occupation would be unreasonably restricted, and the interests of the protection of animals would, without a sufficient constitutional justification, be given priority in a one-sided manner.
Netherlands
The Netherlands at present does not ban ritual slaughter, although legislation to these ends is pending. The country now allows some forms of ritual slaughter due to freedom of religion. The Netherlands, like Switzerland, has in the past considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. Rabbi Melchior, who was serving as Israeli deputy foreign minister at the time of the Dutch debate, said "they simply don't want foreigners and they don't want Jews." In February 2011, a majority in parliament took position against a proposed ban on ritual slaughter without stunning, citing a Council of State advice that deems such a ban in violation of freedom of religion. However, in June 2011 the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law, proposed by the Party for the Animals, banning ritual slaughter without stunning. The law provides for a temporary (for a maximum of five years) exemption from the ban if an applicant can show scientific evidence, subject to specific conditions, that the proposed method of unstunned slaughter does not cause the animal more distress than regular slaughter does. Despite a comfortable passage through the lower house, a majority in the Senate came out against the proposal when it was being debated there. As such it is highly unlikely that the proposal shall become law.
Spain
Animal welfare is controlled under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 32/2007, of November 7th. Article 6 of the act concerns slaughter of animals, including ritual slaughter:
"When the slaughter of animals is carried out according to the rites of Churches, religious denominations or communities registered in the Register of Religious Entities, and the stunning requirements are inconsistent with the rules of the respective religious rite, the competent authorities will not demand the compliance with such requirements provided that the procedure is carried out within the limits referred to in Article 3 of the Organic Law no. 7 of 5 July 1980 on Religious Freedom. In any case, the slaughter according to whatever religious rite shall be carried out under the supervision and according to the instructions of the official veterinarian. The slaughterhouse shall notify the competent authority that it will carry out this kind of slaughter in order to have it registered for this purpose, without prejudice to the authorisation provided for in the European Community legislation."
Sweden
All animals except fish must be stunned before slaughter.
Other countries
In the rest of Europe the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country. While countries that had Nazis and antisemites in parliament and in military dictatorships in occupied Europe in the 1930s and during the war introduced bans, democratic countries - the US, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands - introduced legislation protecting shehitah.
Prior to the rise of National Socialism in Germany, bans only existed in Switzerland, Norway and Saxony. When Hitler came to power, the German National Socialist government introduced a ban in the whole of Germany in 1933, and in Poland when it invaded in 1939. Bans were introduced in all the countries which the Nazis occupied, as well as in the countries of the Axis allies, Italy and Hungary. These were removed by order of the Allied Military authorities by a special order, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms included sections on Religious Freedom that in the preliminary discussions, referred specifically to religious ritual slaughter bans.
Countries in which animals must be stunned right after the cut include Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Lower Austria province.
Countries that impose stunning before slaughter comprise Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Sweden.
In the Netherlands, a bill introduced by the animal rights party has passed through Parliament, but must be approved by the Senate to become law The Netherlands is one of the countries that introduced legislative protection for shehitah.
For Belgium, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal further information is needed.
Complete information up to 1946 on every ban introduced in every country in Europe in the original languages and in English translation is to be found in Religious Freedom: The Right to Practice Shehitah Munk, Berman together with references to the original debates and an analysis that claims that until the rise of Hitler in 1933, the international campaign to introduce ritual slaughter/ shehitah bans had failed because the vast majority of countries where legislation had been proposed rejected the legislation realising the involvement of anti-Semites in the campaign and enacted legislation to protect Jewish and Muslim slaughter. The League of Nations supported the Jewish Community of Upper Silesia against Hitler in rejecting the attempts by German officials to confiscate shehitah knives and ban Jewish slaughter.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has sections on Religious Freedom. The preparatory discussions for these dealt specifically with bans imposed by Hitler on Jewish and Muslim religious slaughter, and those countries that are signatories to the Convention and have bans today are not abiding by the convention.
Norway
Norway copied the Swiss campaign to ban ritual slaughter. The same arguments were presented as in the Swiss campaign and an appeal was made by the Jewish community to the Norwegian parliament not to introduce the legislation. After the ban was introduced, Norwegian Jews imported kosher meat from Sweden until it was banned there too.
In the 1890s, protests were raised in the Norwegian press against the practice of shechita. The Jewish community responded to these objections by assuring the public that the method was in fact humane. Efforts to ban shechita put sincere humane society activists in league with antisemitic individuals. In particular, Jonas Søhr used the cause as a means to attack not just the slaughter methods of the small Jewish community in Norway, but also the community itself. Those opposing the ban included Fridtjof Nansen, but the division on the issue crossed party lines in all mainstream parties, except the Farmer's Party, which was principled in its opposition to schechita.
The Food Health regulations were controversial, especially the stunning requirement, as they would lead to a fundamental change in the meat producing market. A committee was commissioned on February 11, 1927 that consulted numerous experts and visited a slaughterhouse in Copenhagen. Its majority favored the changes and found support in the Department of Agriculture and the parliamentary agriculture committee. Those who opposed a ban spoke of religious tolerance, and also found that schechita was no more inhumane than other slaughter methods. C J Hambro was one of those most appalled by the antisemitic invective, noting that "where animal rights are protected to an exaggerated extent, it usually is done with the help of human sacrifice"
Switzerland
The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1893.
"In Switzerland, a ban on kosher slaughter has been enforced since 1897, when the people supported this measure through a referendum with clear anti-Semitic undertones. At the time, Jews had recently been granted full civil rights and some Swiss citizens feared an invasion of Jewish migrants from Eastern Europe, who they considered to be unassimilable, foreign, and unreliable. By banning the performance of a core Jewish ritual, the Swiss people found a disguised way to limit the immigration of Jews into Switzerland."
According to the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour "Ritual slaughter (the bleeding to death of animals that have not first been stunned) was made illegal in the country in 1893; however, a 1978 Law on the Protection of Animals explicitly allows for the importation of kosher and halal meat. Imported from France and Germany, this meat is available in the country at comparable prices. In 2003, a popular initiative to protect animal rights and prohibit the import of meat from animals bled without stunning was filed; in December 2005, however, the sponsors withdrew their initiative before it had been submitted to a national vote after Parliament adopted a revision of the Law on the Protection of Animals."
There was a backlash against a proposal to lift the ban in 2002. "In 2002, when the Swiss government attempted to lift the century-old ban, animal rights activists, political groups (on the left and the right), and unaffiliated citizens expressed strong opposition. They called shechita practice a "barbaric" and "sanguinary", an "archaic tradition from the time of the ghettos", and asked Jews to either become vegetarian or leave the country."
Proposals to extend ban to imports
Switzerland have considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. The Swiss Animal Association called for a referendum on banning kosher imports. Christopher Blocher, a cabinet minister for the Swiss People's Party, has supported calls to ban the import of kosher and halal meat.
"A recent survey showed more than three-quarters of the population said they would like to see their government ban even the import of kosher meat. Erwin Kessler, an animal rights activist, has been campaigning vigorously for this. He's 40,000 short of the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a referendum to completely ban kosher and halal meat entering Switzerland. Kessler has inflamed the controversy by publicly comparing kosher slaughter to the methods used by Nazis in concentration camps, but denies that his motives are, in fact, anti-semitic."
"Should a proposed ban on the import of kosher meat be accepted by the Swiss people in 2006, it will effectively force Jews who observe kashrut to abstain from the consumption of meat. Muslims will also be affected by this move."
The previous text has been taken from Wikipedia. To read the original article, including its references, please go to Wikipedia.
Slovenia to vote on proposed ritual slaughter ban
October 10, 2012 - EU country's government approved proposal to be sent to National Assembly; Estonia already imposed new restrictions on policy.
Slovenia’s National Assembly is set to vote on a proposed ban on all ritual slaughter, which the European Union member country’s government recently submitted for approval.
Estonia, meanwhile, has reportedly imposed new restrictions on its already stringent slaughter policy.
Dr. Igor Vojtic, a member of the executive board of Slovenia's Jewish community, told JTA that the proposed ban came in animal welfare amendments which the government adopted last month.
Vojtic said it was not certain that the amendments would pass the national assembly vote, which is expected to take place within six weeks to eight weeks.
The amendments state that animals may not undergo slaughter unless they are previously stunned. Both Islamic and Jewish law require animals to be conscious when their necks are cut.
The Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture has not replied to a letter from the Brussels-based European Jewish Parliament, which called the amendments a danger to freedom of worship in Slovenia, Vojtic said.
According to the Slovenian news site 24ur, the Association of Islamic Communities of Slovenia also has protested against the proposed amendment.
Slovenia, which entered the European Union in 2004, has a Jewish population of 400, according to the European Jewish Congress. According to the CIA World Factbook, 2.5 percent of Slovenia’s population of two million people is Muslim.
In Estonia, the Ministry of Agriculture has reportedly limited all ritual slaughter to licensed slaughterhouses, in a package of amendments to the Estonian Animal Welfare Act, according to the country’s public broadcasting company, ERR.
Even before the amendments, Estonia's policy on ritual slaughter was among the European Union’s strictest. Authorities must be notified 10 work days ahead of each planned slaughter and a government inspector oversees each procedure. The animals are stunned after their throats are cut -- a procedure known as post-cut stunning, which not all rabbis permit.
In August, the Conference of European Rabbis said that kosher slaughter could come under further attack this year in Europe.
CER President Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt explained that EU member countries are required to replace domestic laws on religious slaughter by January 2013 with European Regulation 1099, a set of new regulations meant to ensure animals do not experience “unnecessary suffering” at or near the time of the slaughter.
While the regulations allow exception for religious slaughter, they also allow “a certain level of subsidiarity,” or discretion, to each member state.
In 2011, the Dutch parliament voted in favor of a total ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning, but the Dutch Senate scrapped the ban in May 2012.
Source: www.jpost.com
Estonia, meanwhile, has reportedly imposed new restrictions on its already stringent slaughter policy.
Dr. Igor Vojtic, a member of the executive board of Slovenia's Jewish community, told JTA that the proposed ban came in animal welfare amendments which the government adopted last month.
Vojtic said it was not certain that the amendments would pass the national assembly vote, which is expected to take place within six weeks to eight weeks.
The amendments state that animals may not undergo slaughter unless they are previously stunned. Both Islamic and Jewish law require animals to be conscious when their necks are cut.
The Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture has not replied to a letter from the Brussels-based European Jewish Parliament, which called the amendments a danger to freedom of worship in Slovenia, Vojtic said.
According to the Slovenian news site 24ur, the Association of Islamic Communities of Slovenia also has protested against the proposed amendment.
Slovenia, which entered the European Union in 2004, has a Jewish population of 400, according to the European Jewish Congress. According to the CIA World Factbook, 2.5 percent of Slovenia’s population of two million people is Muslim.
In Estonia, the Ministry of Agriculture has reportedly limited all ritual slaughter to licensed slaughterhouses, in a package of amendments to the Estonian Animal Welfare Act, according to the country’s public broadcasting company, ERR.
Even before the amendments, Estonia's policy on ritual slaughter was among the European Union’s strictest. Authorities must be notified 10 work days ahead of each planned slaughter and a government inspector oversees each procedure. The animals are stunned after their throats are cut -- a procedure known as post-cut stunning, which not all rabbis permit.
In August, the Conference of European Rabbis said that kosher slaughter could come under further attack this year in Europe.
CER President Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt explained that EU member countries are required to replace domestic laws on religious slaughter by January 2013 with European Regulation 1099, a set of new regulations meant to ensure animals do not experience “unnecessary suffering” at or near the time of the slaughter.
While the regulations allow exception for religious slaughter, they also allow “a certain level of subsidiarity,” or discretion, to each member state.
In 2011, the Dutch parliament voted in favor of a total ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning, but the Dutch Senate scrapped the ban in May 2012.
Source: www.jpost.com
The current debate in Poland
Poland's Attorney General says the practice of Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter
violates the nation's animal protection act
June 20, 2012
Andrzej Seremet has now submitted an application to Poland's Constitutional Tribunal, a supervisory judicial body that resolves disputes in the country's laws, so that the matter can be reviewed.
Seremet was requested to investigate the matter by a number of non-governmental organisations including the Viva! Animal Rights Foundation.
According to Polish law, animals must be stunned prior to being slaughtered.
However, when butchering animals to create halal meat, Muslims traditionally follow the rite of killing the animals with a single cut to the throat, with no stunning beforehand.
The same process is applied by Jews so as to create kosher meat.
Although Polish law holds that animals must be stunned before being slaughtered, an exception in the law allows this to be waived where ritual slaughter is concerned.
Robert Hernand, spokesman for the Attorney General, told the Dziennik Gazeta Prawna daily that the Ministry of Agriculture had “exceeded its legal rights” by adopting this exception.
Nevertheless, during the Conference of European Rabbis in Poland in 2011, President Bronislaw Komorowski appeared to defend the practice by speaking out against Dutch plans to outlaw ritual slaughter.
Poland's head of state said the Dutch bill “targets the Muslim and Jewish community” and represents “a crisis of tolerance” in Europe.
At present, an EU directive on animal slaughter calls for stunning prior to the kill, but the directive allows for exceptions where ritual slaughter is concerned.
Sweden has banned outright kills made without the animal being stunned beforehand, as have non EU states Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Holland has yet to pass legislation on the matter.
Source
Andrzej Seremet has now submitted an application to Poland's Constitutional Tribunal, a supervisory judicial body that resolves disputes in the country's laws, so that the matter can be reviewed.
Seremet was requested to investigate the matter by a number of non-governmental organisations including the Viva! Animal Rights Foundation.
According to Polish law, animals must be stunned prior to being slaughtered.
However, when butchering animals to create halal meat, Muslims traditionally follow the rite of killing the animals with a single cut to the throat, with no stunning beforehand.
The same process is applied by Jews so as to create kosher meat.
Although Polish law holds that animals must be stunned before being slaughtered, an exception in the law allows this to be waived where ritual slaughter is concerned.
Robert Hernand, spokesman for the Attorney General, told the Dziennik Gazeta Prawna daily that the Ministry of Agriculture had “exceeded its legal rights” by adopting this exception.
Nevertheless, during the Conference of European Rabbis in Poland in 2011, President Bronislaw Komorowski appeared to defend the practice by speaking out against Dutch plans to outlaw ritual slaughter.
Poland's head of state said the Dutch bill “targets the Muslim and Jewish community” and represents “a crisis of tolerance” in Europe.
At present, an EU directive on animal slaughter calls for stunning prior to the kill, but the directive allows for exceptions where ritual slaughter is concerned.
Sweden has banned outright kills made without the animal being stunned beforehand, as have non EU states Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Holland has yet to pass legislation on the matter.
Source
Polish ritual slaughter illegal, court rules
November 28, 2012
Poland's top court has ruled that the religious slaughter of animals is illegal, weeks before an EU law allowing the practice takes effect.
The Constitutional Tribunal said it was against Polish law to allow animals to have their throats cut and bleed to death without first being stunned.
Poland has small Muslim and Jewish communities who use such methods.
Poland now has until the end of the year to decide whether to opt out of the new EU law allowing the practice.
Poland's Agriculture Minister Stanislaw Kalemba told Polish radio the EU law took precedence, and would remove any doubt about the legality of the practice in Poland.
His ministry has awarded licences to at least 17 slaughterhouses to carry out killing of animals according to Jewish or Muslim guidelines.
Sweden is so far the only state in the EU which has banned the religious - sometimes called ritual - slaughter of animals.
'Up to us'
The Polish court considered the case following a petition by animal welfare groups, Polish radio reports.
Attorney General Andrzej Seremet, at the request of animal rights' groups, argued that a 2004 amendment allowing ritual slaughter on religious grounds was unconstitutional in that it contravened animal rights legislation dating back to 1997.
Under the 1997 laws, slaughter should only "follow the loss of consciousness" after a farm animal is stunned.
Animal welfare campaigners stressed that Poland had the option of exemption from the incoming EU regulations.
"It's up to us to decide whether we want a law authorising this kind of slaughter or not," Dariusz Gzyra of the campaign group Empatia told AFP news agency.
However, in Poland - unlike in the Netherlands, whose lower house of parliament voted to outlaw ritual slaughter before a compromise was reached - there is no political support for a ban, says the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw.
Critics fear the court's ruling will send a message of intolerance to religious minorities in Poland, a bastion of Roman Catholicism in Europe.
Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has defended religious slaughter as an ancient practice.
Referring to last year's debate in the Netherlands, he said there was "a crisis of tolerance" in Europe.
Responding to the court ruling in Poland, Piotr Kadlcik, president of the country's Union of Jewish Communities, said it appeared to contradict a 1997 Polish law on relations between his Union and the Polish state.
"It appears there is a legal contradiction here and it is too early to tell what this means," he was quoted as saying by The Times Of Israel.
"We are seeking legal advice on this right now."
Big business
Kosher meat (slaughtered according to Jewish practice) has particular significance in Poland because the country was Europe's Jewish heartland before the Nazi Holocaust.
Some 90% of Poland's Jewish population of three million were murdered. Today just 6,000 Jews remain in a country of 38.3 million, according to the European Jewish Congress.
Poland's Muslims can be numbered in the tens of thousands.
However, Poland is now a producer of both kosher and halal (slaughtered according to Islamic practice) meat for export, selling to Arab countries, Turkey and Israel, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reports.
The value of exports from Poland's kosher and halal abattoirs last year is estimated at 200m euros (£162m; $259m), AFP reports.
The new EU regulation notes that the EU allows a "derogation from stunning in case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses".
"It is important that derogation from stunning animals prior to slaughter should be maintained, leaving, however, a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member State," it says.
Source: BBC News Europe
Poland's top court has ruled that the religious slaughter of animals is illegal, weeks before an EU law allowing the practice takes effect.
The Constitutional Tribunal said it was against Polish law to allow animals to have their throats cut and bleed to death without first being stunned.
Poland has small Muslim and Jewish communities who use such methods.
Poland now has until the end of the year to decide whether to opt out of the new EU law allowing the practice.
Poland's Agriculture Minister Stanislaw Kalemba told Polish radio the EU law took precedence, and would remove any doubt about the legality of the practice in Poland.
His ministry has awarded licences to at least 17 slaughterhouses to carry out killing of animals according to Jewish or Muslim guidelines.
Sweden is so far the only state in the EU which has banned the religious - sometimes called ritual - slaughter of animals.
'Up to us'
The Polish court considered the case following a petition by animal welfare groups, Polish radio reports.
Attorney General Andrzej Seremet, at the request of animal rights' groups, argued that a 2004 amendment allowing ritual slaughter on religious grounds was unconstitutional in that it contravened animal rights legislation dating back to 1997.
Under the 1997 laws, slaughter should only "follow the loss of consciousness" after a farm animal is stunned.
Animal welfare campaigners stressed that Poland had the option of exemption from the incoming EU regulations.
"It's up to us to decide whether we want a law authorising this kind of slaughter or not," Dariusz Gzyra of the campaign group Empatia told AFP news agency.
However, in Poland - unlike in the Netherlands, whose lower house of parliament voted to outlaw ritual slaughter before a compromise was reached - there is no political support for a ban, says the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw.
Critics fear the court's ruling will send a message of intolerance to religious minorities in Poland, a bastion of Roman Catholicism in Europe.
Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has defended religious slaughter as an ancient practice.
Referring to last year's debate in the Netherlands, he said there was "a crisis of tolerance" in Europe.
Responding to the court ruling in Poland, Piotr Kadlcik, president of the country's Union of Jewish Communities, said it appeared to contradict a 1997 Polish law on relations between his Union and the Polish state.
"It appears there is a legal contradiction here and it is too early to tell what this means," he was quoted as saying by The Times Of Israel.
"We are seeking legal advice on this right now."
Big business
Kosher meat (slaughtered according to Jewish practice) has particular significance in Poland because the country was Europe's Jewish heartland before the Nazi Holocaust.
Some 90% of Poland's Jewish population of three million were murdered. Today just 6,000 Jews remain in a country of 38.3 million, according to the European Jewish Congress.
Poland's Muslims can be numbered in the tens of thousands.
However, Poland is now a producer of both kosher and halal (slaughtered according to Islamic practice) meat for export, selling to Arab countries, Turkey and Israel, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reports.
The value of exports from Poland's kosher and halal abattoirs last year is estimated at 200m euros (£162m; $259m), AFP reports.
The new EU regulation notes that the EU allows a "derogation from stunning in case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses".
"It is important that derogation from stunning animals prior to slaughter should be maintained, leaving, however, a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member State," it says.
Source: BBC News Europe
Ritual slaughter exemptions cause animal suffering
and put consumers at risks, says Eurogroup for Animals
28/02/2012 - Eurogroup for Animals
Recent debate in European media shows that consumers are being put at risk due to the widespread failure of EU slaughterhouses to respect European hygiene laws and Eurogroup is extremely concerned as animal welfare is also being compromised in the process.
Under Regulation 853/2004 on the hygiene of food of animal origin the European Union clearly lays out the hygienic process that must be carried out to prevent the spread of contaminated material and the subsequent infection of meat by bacteria and microbes. However under Annex 3 of the Regulation there is an exemption to this process if the slaughter is carried out according to a religious rite. Eurogroup is disgusted that this exemption appears to have become the norm in many parts of the EU.
This not only causes immense animal suffering and is in the main being carried out illegally. It also risks spreading dangerous and often serious illnesses across the EU putting huge numbers of consumers at risk for no reason other than economic greed by meat processors. When non-religious consumers buy and eat meat they have the right to expect that this meat is coming from an animal which has been slaughtered according to the general hygiene rules and not to be exposed to an increased risk without having been clearly informed.
Eurogroup for animals calls on all religious groups to outlaw this necessity and calls for all slaughter to be in accordance with EU law.
The studies
Scientists confirm: ritual slaughter hurts
Animals suffer pain when they are slaughtered without sedation, claims slaughter expert Bert Lambooij. Not true, say a few Jewish organizations, who even went so far as to take out an injunction against Wageningen UR over the issue. Dutch research organization TNO has come out against the finding too. But the Wageningen scientist is in good company: a European study supports his findings.
Lambooij produced a report in 2008, at the request of the then ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food, after questions about this issue were asked in parliament by the animal rights party. The main conclusion was: 'Ritual slaughter without sedation is detrimental to the animal's wellbeing compared to slaughter with sedation.' He also suggested a number of measures aiming to improve animal wellbeing during the ritual slaughter process.
The gist of the current criticism is that Lambooij has not adequately supported his conclusion with scientific research. Is Lambooij a mediocre researcher with an axe to grind? Or do other researchers agree with him? Since Lambooij is the slaughter expert in the Netherlands, we have to look beyond the borders to answer this question.
Jewish and Islamic researchers
The biggest research group in the field of ritual slaughter is DIALREL, a group of European researchers who want to contribute to the discussion on religious slaughter with knowledge and facts. The main partners in this network come from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands (Bert Lambooij), Turkey and Israel. The latter two members make the project particularly interesting, as it means that Jewish and Islamic researchers are involved as well.
In a DIALREL report of last year, nine researchers (among them Lambooij) concluded that throat cutting without anaesthetic carried the highest risks of animals suffering: 'Pain, suffering and distress during the cut and during bleeding are highly likely.' Sedation methods are admittedly not without risks for animal wellbeing, but they are considerable smaller, claim the researchers. They cite from about 300 scientific articles and base their views on observations by veterinary researchers in slaughterhouses in Germany, Spain, England, France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel and Australia.
Simple language
The researchers do not conclude that slaughter without sedation should be forbidden. They contribute their knowledge to the discussion. Their aim is good religious slaughter practice, which affects animal wellbeing as little as possible. This is not just a matter of sedation or the lack of it. Animals can suffer needlessly on account of faulty equipment or a lack of knowledge and skills among staff. DIALREL therefore argues for carefully formulated standardized procedures. Lambooij made the same suggestion in his literature study for the ministry two years earlier.
So what was wrong with Lambooij's report to the ministry? TNO is bothered by the unscientific, imprecise language Lambooij uses in it. The organization does approve of DIALREL's report, however, because it is expressed in academic language. But this difference is explicable. The aim of Lambooij's report was to explain to policymakers in simple language what the many studies on ritual slaughter and animal wellbeing had to say. --- You can read both reports below --
Source: http://resource.wur.nl/en/wetenschap/detail/scientists_confirm_ritual_slaughter_hurts/
Lambooij produced a report in 2008, at the request of the then ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food, after questions about this issue were asked in parliament by the animal rights party. The main conclusion was: 'Ritual slaughter without sedation is detrimental to the animal's wellbeing compared to slaughter with sedation.' He also suggested a number of measures aiming to improve animal wellbeing during the ritual slaughter process.
The gist of the current criticism is that Lambooij has not adequately supported his conclusion with scientific research. Is Lambooij a mediocre researcher with an axe to grind? Or do other researchers agree with him? Since Lambooij is the slaughter expert in the Netherlands, we have to look beyond the borders to answer this question.
Jewish and Islamic researchers
The biggest research group in the field of ritual slaughter is DIALREL, a group of European researchers who want to contribute to the discussion on religious slaughter with knowledge and facts. The main partners in this network come from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands (Bert Lambooij), Turkey and Israel. The latter two members make the project particularly interesting, as it means that Jewish and Islamic researchers are involved as well.
In a DIALREL report of last year, nine researchers (among them Lambooij) concluded that throat cutting without anaesthetic carried the highest risks of animals suffering: 'Pain, suffering and distress during the cut and during bleeding are highly likely.' Sedation methods are admittedly not without risks for animal wellbeing, but they are considerable smaller, claim the researchers. They cite from about 300 scientific articles and base their views on observations by veterinary researchers in slaughterhouses in Germany, Spain, England, France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel and Australia.
Simple language
The researchers do not conclude that slaughter without sedation should be forbidden. They contribute their knowledge to the discussion. Their aim is good religious slaughter practice, which affects animal wellbeing as little as possible. This is not just a matter of sedation or the lack of it. Animals can suffer needlessly on account of faulty equipment or a lack of knowledge and skills among staff. DIALREL therefore argues for carefully formulated standardized procedures. Lambooij made the same suggestion in his literature study for the ministry two years earlier.
So what was wrong with Lambooij's report to the ministry? TNO is bothered by the unscientific, imprecise language Lambooij uses in it. The organization does approve of DIALREL's report, however, because it is expressed in academic language. But this difference is explicable. The aim of Lambooij's report was to explain to policymakers in simple language what the many studies on ritual slaughter and animal wellbeing had to say. --- You can read both reports below --
Source: http://resource.wur.nl/en/wetenschap/detail/scientists_confirm_ritual_slaughter_hurts/
Other related documents...
A dispensation to cause pain
The anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed
by Adam Rutherford - The Guardian - October 15, 2009
The ritual slaughter of animals decreed by Jewish and Muslim dietary laws require that the animals are conscious when they have their throats slit. In the European secular food industry, regulations strive to minimise "the risk of causing pain, fear or distress to the animals" in their being slaughtered for food. Crucially, these rules require the stunning of animals before being killed, either with a bolt to the brain, or with electricity. However, the law kowtows before the Jewish kashrut and Islamic halal guidelines in permitting avoidance of stunning.
This week New Zealand veterinarian scientist Craig Johnson was given an award from the Humane Slaughter Association , for his body of work that demonstrates that animals suffer more without stunning. In one crucial experiment, Johnson et al administered mild anaesthetics to calves so that they could not feel the pain of the incision, but the pain response was still measurable. It remained present in the animals without stunning, but was immediately erased by stunning.
"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful", Johnson told New Scientist. While this may appear to come from the oft-referenced University of the Bleeding Obvious, in fact defenders of Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha slaughter cite scientific evidence that the practice is not painful to the animal. In 2003, the Muslim Council of Great Britain claimed that "the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain." Johnson's work says otherwise.
If we, as the dominant species on Earth, are to use and consume animals, it is our duty to minimise their suffering in doing so. In scientific and medical research, animal work is extremely tightly regulated according to very specific rules designed to minimise suffering. Animal research is expensive, time consuming, and unpleasant: I have never met a scientist who relishes it. This is an important point in arguing with those who oppose the use of animals in scientific research. Some organisations campaign for the use of alternatives, such as cell cultures. In my experience, almost all scientists involved in research which requires animals will tell you that where alternatives are available that can provide as good data, they will use them. But more often than not, the use of animals produces more informative data. However distasteful the experiments may be, the benefits outweigh the costs.
I eat meat. I find this position much harder to justify than my continued support for animal research. I recognise that there are many who oppose both meat eating and scientific research on animals, and for the less fanatical, these arguments can be sophisticated and nuanced. Even so, opponents should surely recognise the ethics of our civilised society go some way to minimise suffering in both of these endeavours.
And yet, at the very same time, we still offer special dispensation to the religious so that ancient and arbitrary customs can be upheld. Neither shechita or dhabiha are described in religious texts, the Torah and the Qur'an, respectively: they derive from oral histories and traditional practices. Some Jewish or Muslim butchers do indeed perform the stun before the cut. It's time to recognise that without the stun these practices cannot be justified scientifically. They are acts of avoidable cruelty predicated on anachronistic beliefs. While they may be part of a "way of life", our ethics insist that they need to be modified.
Johnson received his gong from the HSA for work which, according to New Scientist strengthens "the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane". More precisely, I would think that to a reasonable person it suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject.
Recently, the voices of protest against slaughter of conscious (non-stunned) animals for religious reasons (the so-called ritual slaughter) have been raised in many Member States by local animal protection organizations.
Unfortunately, neither the governments nor the EU authorities seem to take these local actions and petitions into account.
Unfortunately, neither the governments nor the EU authorities seem to take these local actions and petitions into account.
Please help us to have religious slaughter banned throughout Europe by taking the following actions:
- Sign our petition using the widget below, or directly at change.org. The message below will then be sent instantly to the European Parliament. Occupy for Animals has requested the European Parliament to register this petition. By signing the petition now, we will be able to notify you once the European Parliament has confirmed our petition.
- Copy and send the petition letter below to your MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). You can find their names and email addresses easily in the following portal.
- Share this page with your friends and family and ask them to sign the petition, too.
We thank you very much in advance for your support.
Petition letter
I hereby request that the European Parliament prompts the Council to delete from Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing the derogation whereby animals can be killed without prior stunning where such methods of slaughter are prescribed by religious rites (Art. 4.4).
Such derogation is in contradiction to the overall objective of the Regulation, i.e. the protection of animals from pain, anxiety and suffering during the slaughter process. Despite the statement in the Recitals, whereby it is emphasized that “animal welfare is a Community value that is enshrined in the Protocol (No. 33) on protection and welfare of animals, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Protocol No. 33)”, the Regulation allows for the methods of slaughter which, according to the contemporary standards, must be viewed as unquestionably cruel and causing unnecessary pain and anxiety, in terms of both physical and mental distress, and making animals die in extreme suffering.
This fundamental inconsistency in the Regulation was articulated already by the European Economic and Social Committee, in their opinion on the proposal for Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 (see EESC opinion of 25 February 2009). The EESC also indicated that with innovative stunning systems it is possible to comply with religious rules while ensuring that animals are properly stunned but still alive prior to slaughter. Serious objections to the derogation on ritual slaughter have been also expressed by numerous organizations of scholars, animal welfare experts, food safety consultants and veterinarians (e.g. FAWC, HAS, EFSA, FVE), as well as by the experts involved in the DIALREL project funded by the European Commission. Unfortunately, none of these opinions has been taken into account in the said Regulation.
The underlying reason for the derogation on ritual slaughter was the Commission’s concern about the needs of some of the EU citizens, stemming from the special dietary requirements of certain Muslim or Jewish communities. However, the experience of the past few years shows that the current derogation for non-stunned slaughter is abused to a large extent in some Member States, with the result that the meat and meat products from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning enters the mainstream food chain without being labelled, depriving European consumers of their right to make an informed choice on whether they wish to eat such products. This issue was addressed by the European Parliament in the Resolution of 4 July 2012 on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 (Art. 49). The extreme example of such abuse is Poland, where – despite the fact that non-stunned slaughter is not allowed under the Polish Animal Protection Act and the Muslim and Jewish communities are a minute percentage of the country population (less than 0.05%) – ritual slaughter according to Halal and Shechitah methods is done on an enormous scale in dozens of slaughterhouses throughout the country (according to the official 2011 statistics – over 150,000 tons of beef and over 50 million of chickens!). Almost 100% of the meat and meat products from non-stunned slaughter is exported from Poland, mainly to the Muslim countries and Israel. Thus, the non-stunned slaughter in the Polish slaughterhouses does not serve the purpose which the European legislator had in mind when adopting the derogation, i.e. respecting the religious rites of certain European citizens, but is done merely for commercial reasons – to maximize the profits of Polish entrepreneurs, who are becoming the leading meat suppliers to the Muslim and Jewish markets worldwide.
Furthermore, the alleged need to maintain the derogation on ritual slaughter in the European legislation is not supported by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Although the Court admits that eating the meat from ritual slaughter is an element of the freedom of conscience and religion, yet it is explicitly stated “there would be interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable” (case of Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek vs France, judgment of 27 June 2000). In the said case, the Court concluded that religious freedom was not restricted as long as the special kind of meat could be imported from another country.
In view of all the above described circumstances, I believe that it is only right that the European Parliament prompts the Council to delete from Regulation No. 1099/2009 the derogation on ritual slaughter and adopts uniform European legislation under which non-stunned slaughter is totally banned in all the Member States.
[date]
[full name]
[address]
Such derogation is in contradiction to the overall objective of the Regulation, i.e. the protection of animals from pain, anxiety and suffering during the slaughter process. Despite the statement in the Recitals, whereby it is emphasized that “animal welfare is a Community value that is enshrined in the Protocol (No. 33) on protection and welfare of animals, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Protocol No. 33)”, the Regulation allows for the methods of slaughter which, according to the contemporary standards, must be viewed as unquestionably cruel and causing unnecessary pain and anxiety, in terms of both physical and mental distress, and making animals die in extreme suffering.
This fundamental inconsistency in the Regulation was articulated already by the European Economic and Social Committee, in their opinion on the proposal for Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 (see EESC opinion of 25 February 2009). The EESC also indicated that with innovative stunning systems it is possible to comply with religious rules while ensuring that animals are properly stunned but still alive prior to slaughter. Serious objections to the derogation on ritual slaughter have been also expressed by numerous organizations of scholars, animal welfare experts, food safety consultants and veterinarians (e.g. FAWC, HAS, EFSA, FVE), as well as by the experts involved in the DIALREL project funded by the European Commission. Unfortunately, none of these opinions has been taken into account in the said Regulation.
The underlying reason for the derogation on ritual slaughter was the Commission’s concern about the needs of some of the EU citizens, stemming from the special dietary requirements of certain Muslim or Jewish communities. However, the experience of the past few years shows that the current derogation for non-stunned slaughter is abused to a large extent in some Member States, with the result that the meat and meat products from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning enters the mainstream food chain without being labelled, depriving European consumers of their right to make an informed choice on whether they wish to eat such products. This issue was addressed by the European Parliament in the Resolution of 4 July 2012 on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 (Art. 49). The extreme example of such abuse is Poland, where – despite the fact that non-stunned slaughter is not allowed under the Polish Animal Protection Act and the Muslim and Jewish communities are a minute percentage of the country population (less than 0.05%) – ritual slaughter according to Halal and Shechitah methods is done on an enormous scale in dozens of slaughterhouses throughout the country (according to the official 2011 statistics – over 150,000 tons of beef and over 50 million of chickens!). Almost 100% of the meat and meat products from non-stunned slaughter is exported from Poland, mainly to the Muslim countries and Israel. Thus, the non-stunned slaughter in the Polish slaughterhouses does not serve the purpose which the European legislator had in mind when adopting the derogation, i.e. respecting the religious rites of certain European citizens, but is done merely for commercial reasons – to maximize the profits of Polish entrepreneurs, who are becoming the leading meat suppliers to the Muslim and Jewish markets worldwide.
Furthermore, the alleged need to maintain the derogation on ritual slaughter in the European legislation is not supported by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Although the Court admits that eating the meat from ritual slaughter is an element of the freedom of conscience and religion, yet it is explicitly stated “there would be interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion only if the illegality of performing ritual slaughter made it impossible for ultra-orthodox Jews to eat meat from animals slaughtered with the religious prescriptions they considered applicable” (case of Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek vs France, judgment of 27 June 2000). In the said case, the Court concluded that religious freedom was not restricted as long as the special kind of meat could be imported from another country.
In view of all the above described circumstances, I believe that it is only right that the European Parliament prompts the Council to delete from Regulation No. 1099/2009 the derogation on ritual slaughter and adopts uniform European legislation under which non-stunned slaughter is totally banned in all the Member States.
[date]
[full name]
[address]
|
