A Survey of Anti-Shechitaagitation in Contemporary Britain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article is subject to a CC-BY-NC license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this article may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. JCA 2020 (DOI: 10.26613/jca/3.2.58) A Looming Threat? A Survey of Anti-Shechita Agitation in Contemporary Britain* James Mendelsohn Abstract Following the comprehensive defeat of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in the 2019 General Election, many British Jews felt relieved that an “existential threat” had been vanquished. Subsequently, however, a different cloud has come on to the horizon: namely, the possibil- ity of a ban on shechita—kosher slaughter—in the United Kingdom. This article argues that the legal status of shechita in Britain is more vulnerable than previously; and that a ban would have an antisemitic effect, regardless of the intention. The article examines the dis- course employed by groups agitating for a ban (primarily animal welfare groups, secular- ists, and the hard right) and the flow of ideas between them. It does not assume that oppo- nents of shechita are motivated by antisemitism but argues that antisemitism is nonetheless a characteristic of anti-shechita agitation as a whole. The article concludes by assessing the likelihood of a ban being implemented in post-Brexit Britain. Keywords: shechita, kosher meat, non-stun slaughter, animal welfare, secularism, hard right, Brexit, George Eustice, antisemitism INTRODUCTION OUTLINE In December 2019, following the defeat of In Part I, I describe shechita and why it is Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in the General controversial. In Part II, I outline the legal frame- Election, many British Jews felt relieved that an work governing shechita, including how this “existential threat”1 had been vanquished. might change, post-Brexit. In Part III, I examine Within weeks, two subsequent events brought two background areas: previous agitation in a different cloud on to the horizon. Those Britain and agitation overseas. In Part IV, I events were Britain’s formal exit from the examine contemporary campaigns against shechita European Union, and the appointment of in the United Kingdom. These are pursued by George Eustice MP as the Environment three broad groups: animal welfare organisations; Secretary.2 The potential threat that they secularist groups; and the hard right. I consider together herald, is a ban on shechita—kosher the discourse employed by those groups, and the slaughter—in Britain. This article argues that flow of ideas between them. In Part V, I use a such a ban would be antisemitic, in effect if not subjective and objective test to assess whether a in intention; that there is a relationship between ban on shechita would be antisemitic. In Part VI, contemporary anti-shechita agitation and I explore the relationship between contemporary antisemitism; and that the combination of anti-shechita agitation and antisemitism, and Brexit, and Eustice’s appointment, makes the touch on the vegan and vegetarian movements. legal status of shechita in Britain more Finally, in Part VII, I assess the prospects of a ban vulnerable. being implemented in post-Brexit Britain. James Mendelsohn TERMINOLOGY UK legislation, he must be licensed by a Rabbinical Commission, which examines him Shechita” “ (an Anglicisation of a Hebrew word) yearly. He must apply, annually, for the renewal kosher, is the Jewish, or method of slaughter. No of that licence. kosher meat is stunned before slaughter. Shechita is performed with a very long, excep- Dhabiha” “ (an Anglicisation of an Arabic tionally sharp knife, called a chalaf. This must halal, word) is the Islamic, or method of be kept free of nicks, sharpened with a whet- slaughter. Some halal meat is stunned before stone, and checked for imperfections regularly. slaughter; some is not. The incision, which should be uninterrupted, I use the umbrella term, “religious non-stun must be made at the point where it will sever the shechita dhabiha slaughter,” to describe , and structures of the neck as cleanly and rapidly as where it is performed without pre-stunning. possible. No tissues must be torn. Save where quoting others, I avoid the term The incision causes immediate, rapid blood “ritual slaughter,” because it echoes the charge of loss. This deprives the animal’s brain of oxygen, “ritual murder,” which is central to the blood causing irreversible unconsciousness within libel. I expand on this in Part III(i) (“Previous seconds.4 Rosen quotes studies which record that agitation in Britain”). before, at, and immediately after incision, the animals did not flinch or react in a way suggestive PART I: WHAT IS SHECHITA AND WHY IS IT of any feeling of pain: “It can be deduced, CONTROVERSIAL? therefore, that the incision itself is not painful.”5 Rosen likens this to surgeons who cut themselves (i) What Is Shechita? during an operation but do not notice it until Shechita is the Jewish religious method of slaugh- much later. Whilst cattle may take longer to fall tering animals so that meat is kosher, rather than unconscious (seventeen to thirty-three seconds in treif (forbidden), for observant Jews. The animal is a good system6), they have also been observed not slaughtered by a single, swift sweep across the neck to struggle or appear distressed during this with a long, very sharp knife. Dhabiha is performed period.7 Once the animal is unconscious—and in similar fashion, although with fewer knife-de- only then—it is hung up to die by exsanguination. sign requirements, and with the added element that an Islamic prayer is recited beforehand. (ii) Stunning Shechita is described comprehensively in Stuart Rosen’s article, Physiological Insights Animals slaughtered by “conventional” methods into Shechita, which was published in the house are stunned beforehand. They may be stunned journal of the British Veterinary Association in mechanically, by a captive bolt pistol that lands 2004.3 A summary follows. a heavy blow to the head. Some are stunned elec- Firstly, shechita is part of a wider religious trically. Some are made comatose with gas. framework on how to treat animals well. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no clear This framework derives partly from the Tanakh evidence that any of these methods eliminate (the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament) and partly pain. The use of gas, for example, is controver- from the Oral Law (that is, the Talmud). The sial.8 Nor is it even clear that they are preferable rules regarding shechita have been developed to shechita.9 By contrast, shechita includes an with the precise goal of slaughtering an animal integral stun: the severance of the blood vessels as rapidly and painlessly as possible. deprives the brain of oxygen, causing rapid The shochet (slaughterman) trains intensively unconsciousness. Rosen concludes that “Shechita for many years. In addition to licensing require- is a painless and effective method by which to ments which apply to all slaughtermen under stun and dispatch an animal in one rapid act.”10 40 Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism A Survey of Anti-Shechita Agitation in Contemporary Britain Prior stunning is incompatible with shechita, notably Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg of Berlin, because Judaism requires that the animal be to scrutinize Jewish religious sources for permis- healthy, and therefore unharmed, at the time of sion for stunning. They consulted with Eastern slaughter. All stunning methods injure the European rabbis and even conducted scientific animal before the final act of killing, rendering experiments to evaluate common stunning the meat treif. (Some strands of Islam also methods. Some rabbis reluctantly indicated they prohibit pre-stunning in relation to dhabiha.) might consider allowing pre-stunning in the This includes even so-called “reversible” extreme situation that German Jews faced. None methods: studies have found that electrical stun- accepted stunning under normal conditions. ning, for example, causes injuries, including However, a rabbinic consensus was swiftly some that are not immediately visible.11 It is reached, which rejected stunning even under likely that even possible future methods which Nazism; the community as a whole expressed a caused no (immediate) visible damage would be willingness to dispense with meat. Today, no forbidden. In the current absence of any such known mainstream rabbinic authorities allow methods, the point is in any case moot. Equally stunning before shechita in any circumstances.15 moot, at present, is the status within Judaism of lab-grown meat developed from animal stem (iii) Porging cells: both whether such meat could be consumed by Jews, and whether the animals Even if shechita is performed correctly, parts of involved would require shechita.12 the animal cannot be consumed under Jewish Some opponents of shechita argue that these law: the sciatic nerve, blood, and certain fats, rules were formulated before modern stunning which are located primarily in the hindquarters. techniques had been developed, and that they Unless those parts are removed by a practice should be updated accordingly. Leaving aside called “porging,” the hindquarters are considered considerations about how normative Judaism treif. Worldwide, there are fewer and fewer develops through internal rabbinic decisions and trained “porgers.” Consequently, with the rulings, this argument is undermined by two exception of a small amount of kosher meat passages in the Talmud. First, there is an account, slaughtered in Israel, the hindquarters are sold set during the period of Second Temple Judaism, on to the general market.16 Such meat is often of a primitive form of captive-bolt stunning. unlabelled, causing controversy.1718 However, it This was swiftly stopped by the rabbis. Second, is the fact that kosher meat is un-stunned, that there is a discussion of convicted criminals being has most exercised both legislators and drugged, in order to mitigate pain, prior to campaigners.