Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter:"animal rights come before religion"

[Rosa Partizan]

not sure if this is non-political, but due to lack of other appropriate boards, I picked this one. It's a very short article, appr. half a year old, I think that a similar law has been installed in NL? What do you think about it? Is it an honest approach to animal rights? Is it a logical consequence of a secular state? Just post anything that crosses your mind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-as-minister-says-animal-rights-come-before-religion-9135580.html

[rylasasin]

I think both the idea of "Animal Rights" and Kosher are equally stupid.

Well not entirely true, Kosher is worse than AR, so they have my kudos.

[Creative Destruction]

do they ban boiling lobsters, too? there are a lot of "inhumane" non-religious culinary practices that could be considered a lot worse than what they do in kosher and halal slaughterhouses. if they're not up for banning these other, secular, practices, then this just reeks of religious bigotry.

[Tim Cornelis]

A severe blow to cultural Marxism.

In other, good news, about half of the courtships and relationships in the Netherlands are inter-ethnic according to one researcher. So whitey is as good as dead.

[Lily Briscoe]

Yeah, I don't really know the background to this, but my guess would be that it's more along the lines of minaret referendums and bans on male circumcision, with secularism (and, in this case, "animal rights") as the facade.

[Devrim]

It's a deeply racist policy.

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Its a stupid debate, I imagine they really just wanted to ban halal slaughter but felt they had to add kosher in order to avoid being called out for Islamaphobia. Even in 'ethical' secular slaughter houses the animals still experience pain and terror, not to mention the years they've spent cooped up in an industrial farm cage.

[Devrim]

I imagine they really just wanted to ban halal slaughter but felt they had to add kosher in order to avoid being called out for Islamaphobia.

I agree. I don't think it is a coincidence that this has happened at this time of year.

Devrim

[Fakeblock]

It happened in february. The ban was on the butchering of animals without the use of anaesthetics.

[Devrim]

It happened in february. The ban was on the butchering of animals without the use of anaesthetics.

That's my mistake then. I just assumed it was a new news article. It doesn't make it any less racist though.

Devrim

[Lord Testicles]

It happened in february. The ban was on the butchering of animals without the use of anaesthetics.

Like anyone in any position of power really cares if animals are butchered with or without anaesthetics.

[Geiseric]

Hitler was one of the first prominent animal rights activists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

godwin

[consuming negativity]

Everything about it is political. That's probably where I'd have put this thread (in the politics forum).

*shrug*

I like the idea of putting animal rights before religious beliefs, but I don't think that is an honest description of what is going on. There are few, if any, countries in the world which show a serious interest in protecting the rights of animals. I can't think of any, but there may be a couple.

[Rosa Partizan]

Hitler was one of the first prominent animal rights activists.

and the quintessence of that is...?
Hitler persecuted non-Nazi animal rights-organisations, so I hardly doubt there was some honest approach for animal rights. Besides, nationalist parties in many countries do that, like, saving our home, saving our environment...all of this eco-nationalist approach, don't know how to put it eloquently. Get me one of the usual smartasses to draft it out to 25 paragraphs or so.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

geiseric almost comes off as someone suffering from dementia, just ignore him

[Quail]

It really pisses me off when "animal rights" is used as a smokescreen for racism. It's not like non-halal/kosher slaughterhouses are a great place for animals to go. Slaughter is inherently cruel/inhumane so this is really transparent bullshit.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Disregarding the ethical implications of ritualistic animal slaughter, how is this racist? I was under the impression that Islamiphobia/Anti-Semitism were racist because they conflate religions with ethnic groups and use criticism of the religion to covertly denigrate the ethnic group. That isn't happening in this situation. The ban solely affects practicing Jews/Muslims.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, only that I'm not sure that it's inherently racist.

[Lily Briscoe]

Disregarding the ethical implications of ritualistic animal slaughter, how is this racist? I was under the impression that Islamiphobia/Anti-Semitism were racist because they conflate religions with ethnic groups and use criticism of the religion to covertly denigrate the ethnic group. That isn't happening in this situation. The ban solely affects practicing Jews/Muslims.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, only that I'm not sure that it's inherently racist.

I don't think the point is that it's "inherently racist" in some abstract sense, but in context, it almost certainly is. A huge proportion of immigrants to Denmark are from predominantly-Muslim countries and measures like this tend to be used as a way of stoking the sort of hysteria around 'cultural integration' that always accompanies broader attacks on immigrants and ethnic minorities (see: the French ban on the veil, the Swiss minaret referendum, the campaigns against male circumcision for religious reasons, etc. etc.).

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't think the point is that it's "inherently racist" in some abstract sense, but in context, it almost certainly is. A huge proportion of immigrants to Denmark are from predominantly-Muslim countries and measures like this tend to be used as a way of stoking the sort of hysteria around 'cultural integration' that always accompanies broader attacks on immigrants and ethnic minorities (see: the French ban on the veil, the Swiss minaret referendum, the campaigns against male circumcision for religious reasons, etc. etc.).
Yeah, I get that. The question is, is it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water? Why is it not possible to condemn the broader anti immigrant sentiments while acknowledging the rightness of certain policies? Why not oppose racism and religious zealotry simultaneously?

[Hrafn]

Denmark is the Great Satan of Scandinavia.

[Fakeblock]

Yeah, I get that. The question is, is it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water? Why is it not possible to condemn the broader anti immigrant sentiments while acknowledging the rightness of certain policies? Why not oppose racism and religious zealotry simultaneously?

One would think opposition to religious zealotry in Denmark would mean, for example, legislation for the separation of Church and State. It's worth noting that religious slaughters without anaesthetics have not actually been practised in Denmark in years. The ban is purely a symbolic concession to rightist, racist parties - that is, it serves only to legitimise racist campaigns against Muslims, while having no value whatsoever for Communists.

[Rugged Collectivist]

One would think opposition to religious zealotry in Denmark would mean, for example, legislation for the separation of Church and State. It's worth noting that religious slaughters without anaesthetics have not actually been practised in Denmark in years. The ban is purely a symbolic concession to rightist, racist parties - that is, it serves only to legitimise racist campaigns against Muslims, while having no value whatsoever for Communists.

Are you one of those people that thinks separation of church and state should protect churches from interference from the state?

If what you say is true, then this law is undoubtedly racist, though the article states that halal/kosher explicitly forbids anesthetics.

I'm really not even talking about this specific case. My point is that bans against certain religious practices are often justified, and that it would be extremely sad if the left stopped pursuing these due to the co-option of these causes by the right for racist reasons.

Doing so would effectively be giving secularism over to the right.

[Fakeblock]

Are you one of those people that thinks separation of church and state should protect churches from interference from the state?

If what you say is true, then this law is undoubtedly racist, though the article states that halal/kosher explicitly forbids anesthetics.

I'm really not even talking about this specific case. My point is that bans against certain religious practices are often justified, and that it would be extremely sad if the left stopped pursuing these due to the co-option of these causes by the right for racist reasons.

Doing so would effectively be giving secularism over to the right.

With halal-certified meat, anaesthesia is generally induced in the to-be slaughtered animals via an electric bath. There is some dispute regarding whether this is truly in line with the rules though.

The historical Communist movement declared all religion a private affair, it opposed all religious influence on state institutions and ruthlessly fought any politicised manifestation of religious ideology. That is the stance that Communists ought to be repeating today. The principled Communist standpoint can only be to treat all religious rituals as rituals of private unions of individuals, to not give any special treatment to this or that religion in the performance of its rituals. Doing this we do not give secularism over to right. We rather appropriate secularism in opposition to the rightist Christians, the Islamists and the "secular" European Social-Democrats, who fall over themselves trying to accommodate the religious reactionaries.

However, only by building a Communist movement, by developing a Communist ideology that can lead the proletariat towards a true understanding of its political tasks, can we even attempt to challenge the influence of reactionary ideology, including religion, among the broad swaths of the working people. When that development is under way, but only then, would we begin to see all these religious superstitions be dumped en masse into the dustbin of history where they rightfully belong (excuse the corny metaphor).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If they had banned the practice of mass slaughter all together, I would be all for it. I mean as it is I'm in favor of banning halal and kosher slaughter as I do think it's pretty backwards and crazy, but in this context it's clearly a racist policy aimed at Muslim immigrants.

[Lily Briscoe]

Yeah, I get that. The question is, is it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water? Why is it not possible to condemn the broader anti immigrant sentiments while acknowledging the rightness of certain policies? Why not oppose racism and religious zealotry simultaneously?

I don't see any "rightness" in banning halal and kosher slaughter; I think it's absurd, actually. But regardless, I don't think you can disconnect these kinds of policies from their context and just deal with it as some abstract concept ("is halal and kosher slaughter nice for the animals?" "should a secular state ban these kinds of religious customs?"). If your (in a general sense) opposition to "religious zealotry" translates into support for racist policies/anti-immigrant campaigns, I would suggest that there is something very wrong with your entire political approach.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't see any "rightness" in banning halal and kosher slaughter; I think it's absurd, actually. But regardless, I don't think you can disconnect these kinds of policies from their context and just deal with it as some abstract concept ("is halal and kosher slaughter nice for the animals?" "should a secular state ban these kinds of religious customs?"). If your (in a general sense) opposition to "religious zealotry" translates into support for racist policies/anti-immigrant campaigns, I would suggest that there is something very wrong with your entire political approach.

Again, I have no position on the specific law being discussed.

How, specifically, is it racist/Anti-immigrant?

[#FF0000]

Again, I have no position on the specific law being discussed.

How, specifically, is it racist/Anti-immigrant?

Because it is a policy that specifically discriminates against certain groups of people.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It prevents Muslims from practicing their religion. In the context of an upsurge in right wing and anti-immigrant, specifically anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe, this is the government effectively siding with those who espouse those views.

[Martin Luther]

I wasn't aware that kosher or halal slaughtering practices were uniquely brutal or something. It's not like you could reconcile farm animal comfort with the meat demand of modern society anyway.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Coming soon: Revleft defends Jehovah's Witnesses' right to refuse their children life saving blood transfusions on grounds of "religious freedom".

[Devrim]

Coming soon: Prople on Revleft support the persecution of Muslims in the West advocating the banning of halal meat and circumcision, and the bombing of the Middle East by the imperialist powers.

Oh no, we have already had all that.

Devrim

[Rugged Collectivist]

Coming soon: Prople on Revleft support the persecution of Muslims in the West advocating the banning of halal meat and circumcision, and the bombing of the Middle East by the imperialist powers.

Oh no, we have already had all that.

Devrim

So what's the alternative? Let the religious do whatever the hell they want?

You're really reaching; trying to connect this law with support for imperialist intervention.

[Rugged Collectivist]

If they had banned the practice of mass slaughter all together, I would be all for it. I mean as it is I'm in favor of banning halal and kosher slaughter as I do think it's pretty backwards and crazy, but in this context it's clearly a racist policy aimed at Muslim immigrants.

So you're not in favor of banning a practice you consider "backwards and crazy" because a ban might be construed as racist?

[Devrim]

So what's the alternative? Let the religious do whatever the hell they want?

Provided it doesn't do anyone else any harm, yes.


You're really reaching; trying to connect this law with support for imperialist intervention.

Not at all, it's one way to deal with Muslims at home, one way to deal with them in the Middle East.

Devrim

[Rugged Collectivist]

Provided it doesn't do anyone else any harm, yes.


But it does in the case of circumcision, and some would argue that halal/kosher slaughter is unnecessarily cruel.

[Devrim]

But it does in the case of circumcision,

Well no it doesn't. I'm not getting into a discussion about this at all though.


and some would argue that halal/kosher slaughter is unnecessarily cruel.

Would that be as opposed the the rest of the meat industry, which is animal friendly, and where all of the animals used are volunteers?

Devrim

[Rugged Collectivist]

Well no it doesn't. I'm not getting into a discussion about this at all though.

Fair enough. It's a discussion for another thread but it helps me illustrate my point.


Would that be as opposed the the rest of the meat industry, which is animal friendly, and where all of the animals used are volunteers?

Devrim

I won't contest this since I explicitly said that I'm not taking a position on halal/kosher slaughter. The issue itself is irrelevant, it's the larger point that matters.

[Devrim]

I won't contest this since I explicitly said that I'm not taking a position on halal/kosher slaughter. The issue itself is irrelevant, it's the larger point that matters.

There are three main issues where the right in the West is legislating, or advocating anti-Muslim legislation: Halal, headscarves, and circumcision. I don't really think that there is a larger point.

Devrim

[Fakeblock]

Oops mistake post

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So you're not in favor of banning a practice you consider "backwards and crazy" because a ban might be construed as racist?

You make it sound like we're making it making up by saying "construed", but you have not put forth any evidence to prove us wrong yet. I'm against halal slaughter, I'm against circumcision and I'm against headscarves. The problem is that the state is not the proper channel to address these issues through, especially when it's doing it in conjunction with racist ideologies. Do you think this policy will lead to more Muslims abandoning Islam or something? It just makes their lives more difficult and adds resentment on top of it. This is a stupid and dangerous path to take, religion will be combated by communism not the bourgeoisie and their lapdogs.

[human strike]

I find the notion of ethical slaughter amusing.

[Rafiq]

I don't care for animals and we must absolutely oppose all forms of religious expression.

However, why are such policies (of banning certain religious practices) reactionary? Because they go further to corner and politicize the identity of the "Muslim community" - they help create the dichotomy between Muslim and non Muslim. Which is precisely why Islamophobes and Islamists are two sides of the same coin - they both find political relevance in the false identity of being a Muslim.

The struggle against Islam and backward practices must come from within the ranks of the immigrant communities themselves - we can encourage them, and we can do well not to legitimize, verbally tolerate or reinforce their backward practices, but ultimately it is Muslims themselves who must hang their own clerics and attack their religion. Well, let me be clear, this isn't necessarily always true - we Communists should fight Islamists in the Muslim communities ourselves. But any policy that alienates, and makes the Muslims a categorical 'other', that creates dichotomy between different cultures, or religious and ethnic identities is reactionary.

We oppose the neoFascists for deceiving workers in Europe, and we oppose Islamism for deceiving workers among Muslims.

Make no mistake, we must not tolerate Islam - but we must attack Islam by holding Muslims to our standards, by including them into our political atmosphere thereby holding them accountable for any backward beliefs all the same we hold westerners "who should know better".

On paper, who cares about this law? There's nothing wrong with it on paper. It's the political context and the implications. In the central Asian republics during the 1920's, the Soviet state banned the veil, and outlawed many Muslim practices. But how? Nativization. They were empowering the uneducated and backward rural populations. This is vastly different from the situation at hand here - this law contextually is intended as an expression of reactionary anti immigrant fevor.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

For the first time since I've joined this board....I can say that I absolutely agree with everything Rafiq just said.