Source: Cruelty to Animals (letter to the editors). December 5th 2006, FAZ Those who want to live in Germany have to adapt to the laws Source: Does religion really stand above the law? (letter to the editors). November 27th 2006, Die Welt How much do we need to abide to other cultures, or put differently; why aren’t we in the position to defend our own culture? (…) But the principle, that religion should be more powerful than laws, and that German federal judges actually allow this madness makes me frightened
Stunning and animal welfare concerns As already mentioned the media discourse on religious slaughter centres heavily around the question of stunning or lack of stunning. As such animal welfare concerns are most commonly raised. The discourse takes up questions of suffering, pain and the prolonging of time of death. Animal welfare organisations basically consider slaughter without stunning cruel. From time to time, counterarguments are raised asking why hunting or emergency slaughter is any different. In this regard, an article published in FAZ 8 brought up the issue of animal testing in the medical and scientific field. Although animal testing is a much contested and highly controversial issue of its own, it is hardly brought into the debates on religious slaughter. The article ‘No Opium for animals’ also published in the FAZ 9 problematizes this by questioning the premises of the law permitting the slaughter without stunning. As of January 15th 2002, anyone whose personal belief or community of belief demands it should be granted the exceptional authority to slaughter without stunning. The difficulty of interpretation has been widely discussed in the general press. ‘No opium for animals’ stresses the difficulty of interpreting concepts such as ‘community of belief’ and ‘demand’. A ‘community of belief’ which is often exempted from stunning decree is that of science, as “science in our society is the religion” 10 . Deutscher Tierschutzbund (German Animal Protection Organisation) argue that slaughter without stunning is significantly more stressful for the animal than slaughter with stunning, referring to scientific results. They also state that most Muslims in Germany have already accepted slaughter with short time electrical stunning and call out for everyone to use this method in avoidance of any pain and suffering for the animal. In a statement letter 11 about religious slaughter from an animal welfare perspective the Deutscher Tierschutzbund describe the consequences of slaughter without stunning when the conditions are not perfect. Not only the circumstances surrounding death is seen as extremely painful, but the preparations in beforehand are considered stressful for the animal as well. With references to scientific studies animal welfare organisations stress that religious slaughter without stunning does not 8
Faith and suffering. Frankfurter Allgemeine January 21st 2002. No Opium for animals. Frankfurter Allgemeine January 16th 2002. 10 Ibid. 11 https://www.tierschutzbund.de/download/register/PDF/Stellungnahmen/Landwirtschaft/Schlachten___Schaech ten/Stell_Sch_chten_Stand_Juni_2007.pdf 9
9