You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 54.175.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:35, 2 September 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 18:28, 12 November 2023
- Expiry of block: 18:28, 12 November 2028
Your current IP address is 54.175.23.117. The blocked range is 54.175.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((For|aspects of ritual slaughter governed by religious law|shechita|dhabiha))
((Use dmy dates|date=October 2019))((use British English|date=June 2018))
((More citations needed|date=June 2018))
[[File:Legal stunning requirements for ritual slaughter world map.svg|thumb|350px|Legal requirements for ritual slaughter around the world:
((Legend|#FF0000|Stunning not required))
((Legend|#7CFC00|Post-cut stunning required))
((Legend|#00FFFF|Simultaneous stunning required))
((Legend|#008000|Pre-cut stunning required))
((Legend|#0000FF|Ritual slaughter banned))
((Legend|#E6E6FA|No data))]]
((Religious freedom))
The '''legal aspects of ritual slaughter''' include the regulation of [[slaughterhouse]]s, [[butcher]]s, and religious personnel involved with traditional [[shechita]] (Jewish) and [[dhabiha]] (Islamic). Regulations also may extend to [[meat|butchery products]] sold in accordance with [[kashrut]] and [[halal]] religious law. Governments regulate ritual slaughter, primarily through [[legislation]] and [[administrative law]]. In addition, compliance with oversight of ritual slaughter is monitored by governmental agencies and, on occasion, contested in [[litigation]].

The most controversial aspect of ritual slaughter is the legality of [[stunning|unstunned]] slaughter, where [[animal welfare]] concerns regularly clash with religious concerns, and split public opinion.<ref name="Rawlinson">((Cite book |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Mary |last2=Ward |first2=Caleb |date=2016 |title=The Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UUyTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA306 |location=New York |publisher=Routledge |pages=305–306 |isbn=9781317595502 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref>

== Scope of regulations ==
In Western countries, law reaches into every stage of ritual slaughter, from the slaughtering of livestock to the sale of kosher or halal meat.<ref>[https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/05/kill-and-let-kill The Economist: ''The debate surrounding religious rules for slaughtering animals'']</ref>
In the United States, for example, courts have ruled that kosher butchers may be excluded from collective bargaining units,<ref>Aurora Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 904 F. 2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1990) as cited by [http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-commercial.html Jlaw.com]</ref> a Jewish [[beit din]] (court) may forbid trade with disapproved butchers,<ref>S.S. & B. Live Poultry Corp. v. Kashrut Ass'n of Greater NY, 158 Misc. 358, 285 N.Y.S. 879 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. City, 1936) as cited by [http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-commercial.html Jlaw.com]</ref> retail sellers implicitly stipulate their compliance with rabbinic courts,<ref>Cohen v. Silver, 277 Mass 230, 178 NE 508 (Supreme Judicial Court, 1931) as cited by [http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-commercial.html Jlaw.com]</ref> a state law (NY) may incorporate a rabbinical ruling on kosher labeling,<ref>People v. Gordon, 14 NYS2d 333, 172 Misc 543 (Sp. Sess. 1939) as cited by [http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-commercial.html Jlaw.com]</ref> and kashrut symbols may be subject to trade infringement laws.<ref>Levy v. Kosher Overseers Association of America, Inc., 104 F. 3d 38 (2d Cir. 1997) as cited by [http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-commercial.html Jlaw.com]</ref>

In Jones v. Butz, the action involved "a challenge, under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the [[First Amendment]], to the [[Humane Slaughter Act]] and in particular to the provisions relating to ritual slaughter as defined in the Act and which plaintiffs suggested involved the Government in the dietary preferences of a particular religious (e.g., Orthodox Jews) group.  The court held that there is no violation of Establishment Clause because no excessive governmental entanglement and by making it possible for those who wish to eat ritually acceptable meat to slaughter the animal in accordance with the tenets of their faith, Congress neither established the tenets of that faith nor interfered with the exercise of any other."<ref>[https://www.animallaw.info/case/jones-v-butz Michigan State University College of Law ''Animal Legal and Historical Center'']</ref>

In the United States religious slaughter is not practiced under any exemption, as is the case in several European legal codes.<ref>[http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/dr-isaac-lewin-and-the-fight-for-kosher-slaughter Nathan Lewin ''Dr. Isaac Lewin And The Fight For Kosher Slaughter'']</ref> Instead the [[Humane Slaughter Act]] defines religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims as one of two humane methods for killing animals for food:

<blockquote>by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Islamic and Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering. the other being using stunning.</p></blockquote>

The kosher food industry has challenged regulations as an infringement on religious freedom.<ref>"Kosher Food Regulation and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment" by Gerald F. Masoudi, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', Vol. 60, No. 2. (Spring, 1993), pp. 667–696 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600082 JSTOR link]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/halal-shechita-politics-animal-slaughter Sam Jones ''Halal, Shechita and the politics of animal slaughter'' The Guardian]</ref>

Secular governments also have sought to restrict ritual slaughter not intended for food consumption. In the US, the most prominent such case is [[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah]]. In this case, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled unconstitutional a local Florida ban on [[Santería]] ritual [[animal sacrifice]].<ref>[https://www.animallaw.info/article/free-exercise-does-not-protect-animal-sacrifice-misconception-church-lukumi-babalu-aye-v ''Free Exercise Does Not Protect Animal Sacrifice: The Misconception of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and Constitutional Solutions for Stopping Animal Sacrifice'' Shannon L. Doheny]</ref>

The issue is complicated by allegations of [[antisemitism]] and [[xenophobia]].<ref>[https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4599/like-it-or-not-the-ritual-slaughter-debate-is-about-much-more-than-animal-rights Paul Sims ''Like it or not, the ritual slaughter debate is about much more than animal rights'']</ref><ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/butchery-law-anti-semitic-roots ScienceNordic ''Butchery law with anti-Semitic roots'']</ref><ref>''Regulating slaughter: Animal Protection and Antisemitism in Scandinavia, 1880–1941'' Michael Metcalf. Patterns of Prejudice, vol 23 no.3, 1989</ref>

Lastly, recent debate in [[Switzerland]] has been contentious, in part, because of comparisons by a prominent activist between kosher slaughter and the methods used by [[Nazis]] in [[concentration camps]]. The [[metaphor]] was borrowed from the [[vegetarian]] and [[Nobel Prize]] [[laureate]] [[Isaac Bashevis Singer]] who said "I am not a vegetarian for my own health, but for the health of the chickens" and has one of his fictional characters say,  "In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka."<ref>[http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/14444.Isaac_Bashevis_Singer Quoted on this site in French: "En pensée, Herman fit l'oraison funèbre de la souris qui avait partagé une partie de sa vie et qui, à cause de lui, avait quitté cette terre. Tous ces érudits, tous ces philosophes, les dirigeants de la planète, que savent-ils de quelqu'un comme toi? Ils se sont persuadé que l'homme, espèce pécheresse entre toutes, domine la création. Toutes les autres créatures n'auraient été créées que pour lui procurer de la nourritures, des fourrures, pour être martyrisées, exterminées. Pour ces créatures, tous les humains sont nazis; pour les animaux, c'est un éternel Treblinka."]</ref>

== Religious slaughter practice ==
((Fiqh |hygiene))
((Main|ritual slaughter))
((see also|shechita|dhabiha|comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws))

=== Islamic jurisprudence ===
A 1935 fatwa by the Mufti of Delhi declared that stunning that does not kill the animal and thus is 'reversible' is allowed under Islamic law.<ref name="Menuge">((Cite book |last=Menuge |first=Angus J.L. |date=2016 |title=Legitimizing Human Rights: Secular and Religious Perspectives |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=318GDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40 |location=New York |publisher=Routledge |pages=39–49 |isbn=9781317105763 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref> [[List of Presidents of Al-Azhar University|Al-Azhar rector]] Muhammad el-Tayyeb el-Naggar confirmed in 1982 that stunning would not make the practice un-Islamic.<ref name="Menuge"/> Many Muslim authorities accept reversible stunning prior to the cut, such as electrostunning, or concussion with a roundheaded (mushroom-shaped) hammer.<ref>((cite web |url=http://halalcertification.ie/islamic-method-of-slaughtering/ |title=Islamic Method Of Slaughtering |work=Department of Halal Certification Europe (DHCE) |publisher=Al-Mustafa Islamic Centre Ireland |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref><ref name="Dialrel"/> Supreme Leader of Iran ayatollah [[Ali Khamenei]] permits pre-cut stunning, while Iraqi ayatollah [[Ali al-Sistani]] forbids it.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d75mea/halal-slaughter-is-more-complicated-than-you-realize |title=Halal Slaughter Is More Complicated Than You Realize |author=Lauren Rothman |work=Vice News |date=30 October 2014 |access-date=3 October 2019))</ref> In 2014, about 85% of halal meat produced by the Muslim community in the [[United Kingdom]] was pre-stunned.<ref name="Today2014">((cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsNXRk1NjYI  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211218/TsNXRk1NjYI |archive-date=2021-12-18 |url-status=live|title=John Blackwell (BVA Head) - End Religious Slaughter Without Pre-Stunning (2014) |author=Mishal Husain |work=[[Today (BBC Radio 4)|The Today Programme]] |publisher=[[BBC Radio 4]] |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))((cbignore)) The [[British Veterinary Association]]'s head John Blackwell and vice-president [[Jonathan Arkush]] of the [[Board of Deputies of British Jews]] outline two sides of the public debate on the ritual slaughter of animals.</ref>((rp|at=3:38))

=== Jewish jurisprudence ===
According to Jewish law, slaughter of cattle and poultry is carried out with a single cut to the throat.<ref>Shulhan Arukh Yorei De'ah</ref>((clarify|date=September 2020)) According to ShechitaUK, '[a]ll forms of mechanical stunning, which may include asphyxiation by gas, electrocution by tongs or water or shooting with a captive bolt gun, cause pain on application and are thus prohibited by Jewish law.'<ref>((Cite web |url=https://www.shechitauk.org/faq/ |title=F.A.Q. |date=31 January 2016 |publisher=ShechitaUK |access-date=30 September 2020))</ref> According to rabbi [[Norman Solomon (rabbi)|Norman Solomon]] (2000), some [[Reform Judaism|Reform Jews]] regard ethics as more important than diet, and reject the very notion of kosher meat.<ref>((Cite web |url=https://reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/shmini-ii/dietary-laws-fitness-life-well-lived |title=Reform Judaism's attitude to ''kashruth'' |access-date=11 November 2019 |archive-date=11 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191111161446/https://reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/shmini-ii/dietary-laws-fitness-life-well-lived |url-status=dead ))</ref><ref>[https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/289164/jewish/Liverpool-Kosher-Catering-for-Reform-Functions.htm Letter from the Lubavitcher rebbe z"l concerning Reform Judaism and Kashruth]</ref><ref name="Menuge"/> Within the North American [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] denomination of Judaism, there is a broad consensus of accepting meat from animals stunned before slaughter as kosher.<ref name="humanesociety.org">((cite web |url=http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/faith/conservative_judaism_pdf.pdf |title=Conservative Judaism |publisher=[[Humane Society of the United States]] |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref> Without exception, [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jewish communities]] uphold the prohibition on stunning before slaughter.<ref name="Dialrel"/>

In practice, a requirement for a shohet (Jewish ritual slaughterer) is that the shohet adheres to a high level of religiosity.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=QH3BHQulNpsC&dq=requirement+for+shohet+religiosity&pg=PA225 ''A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza'' S. D. Goitein]</ref><ref name="fao.org">((Cite web |url=http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm |title=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: ''Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock'', chapter 7 |access-date=4 November 2011 |archive-date=27 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160627204715/http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6909e/x6909e09.htm |url-status=dead ))</ref> Any kind of prestunning for livestock to be slaughtered according to the Jewish Kosher method has not yet((when|date=September 2020)) been accepted by orthodox Judaism.((citation needed|date=September 2020|reason=What does 'mainstream Orthodox Judaism' mean? Does such a thing even exist, or is it a contradiction in terms?)) In practice, kosher slaughtering is carried out by orthodox shochtim (authorized slaughterers) because the meat produced by Conservative slaughters from the Conservative denomination would not be acceptable to orthodox practising Jews and the limited market that would accept such meat is not commercially viable.<ref name="fao.org"/><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=DB0GsYw6dhAC&dq=conservative+jews+accept+stunning&pg=PA94 ''Contested Rituals: Circumcision, Kosher Butchering, and Jewish Political ...'' Robin Judd]</ref>

== Historic bans (until 1945) ==
=== Asia ===
Some rulers [[Ahimsa#Laws|banned all killing]] on their land for some period each year, including ritual slaughter. [[Beop of Baekje]] banned all kinds of killing.<ref>百濟第二十九主法王諱宣。或云孝順。開皇十年己未即位。是年冬。下詔禁殺生。放民家所養鷹鸇之類。焚漁獵之具。一切禁止。三國遺事 卷3</ref> [[Emperor Tenmu]]、[[Empress Genshō]]、[[Emperor Shōmu]] banned eating meat in Japan, in 675.<ref>[http://www.soci.fju.edu.tw/attachments/115_%E9%BB%83%E9%9D%96%E5%B5%90-You%20are%20what%20you%20eat.pdf 2010 社會學研究生論文發表會2010 年3 月19 日]((Dead link|date=September 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes ))</ref> [[Tokugawa Tsunayoshi]] who was Fifth General Shōgun of Edo (Japan) made animal protection laws and when he died, about 8000 criminals (including 3800 in [[Edo]]) who had been convicted of violating the law, were released (see [[:ja:生類憐れみの令]]).<ref>[鳥銃濫発禁止令」「犬猫を繋ぐことの禁止令」「鳥魚貝等の憐れみ令」「犬猫憐れみ令」「馬匹憐れみ令」「猪鹿狼憐れ
み令]</ref><ref>[http://www12.plala.or.jp/rekisi/syourui-2.html 生類憐みの令の真実]</ref> According to the Red Annals (Deb-ther Dmar-po), [[Möngke Khan]] prohibited [[meat eating]] and killing four days each month.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

After conquering [[Bago, Burma|Bago]] in 1559, King [[Bayinnaung]] prohibited the practice of [[halal]]. Halal slaughter was also forbidden by King [[Alaungpaya]] in the 18th century.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

According to the ''White History of the Tenfold Virtuous Dharma'' (Arban Buyantu Nom-un Caġan Teüke), [[Altan Khan]] ordered the religious code Arban Buyantu Nom-un Cagaja prohibited human and animal sacrifice.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

=== Europe until 1945 ===
In the 1880s, [[anti-Semites]] joined forces with Animal Protection Societies to campaign for anti-shechita legislation to be passed in Switzerland, Germany and [[Scandinavia]].<ref name="Metcalf 1989 pp. 32">Metcalf, "Regulating Slaughter: Animal Protection and Antisemitism in Scandinavia, 1880–1941", Patterns of Prejudice 23 (1989): pp. 32–48.</ref>

In [[Switzerland]] shechitah was forbidden throughout the whole country in 1893 after having been banned in the [[cantons]] of [[Aargau]] and [[St. Gallen]] in 1867 after [[plebiscites]], and later a ban was introduced in the whole of Switzerland after a plebiscite at Federal level. The system of voting on individual policies using referendums (plebiscites) had only recently been introduced.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1201&letter=S |title=Switzerland |publisher=JewishEncyclopedia.com |access-date=2013-04-22))</ref><ref>((cite web|url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/swiss.html |title=Switzerland: Virtual Jewish History Tour |publisher=Jewishvirtuallibrary.org |access-date=2013-04-22))</ref> and the first plebiscite in Swiss history was on the subject of banning shechita. The government and all the political parties were against the ban, but the popular sentiment won the day.<ref>[http://jcpa.org/article/muslims-and-jews-in-switzerland/ Dr. Simon Erlanger ''Muslims and Jews in Switzerland'' note 37]</ref>

[[Sweden]] banned shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter) of cattle in 1937, and of poultry in 1989.<ref>((Cite web |url=http://bechollashon.org/heart/index.php/articles/1591 |title=Ron Journard ''Jerusalem Post'' 10 February 1989 |access-date=2 March 2017 |archive-date=3 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170303043339/http://bechollashon.org/heart/index.php/articles/1591 |url-status=dead ))</ref> In June, 1937, a law, the effect of which was to abolish Shehitah, was presented to the Riksdag by Karl G. Westman (bondeförbundet) Minister of Justice. It was passed on June 4, 1937, and went into force July 1, 1938.
The law made stunning mandatory before the drawing of blood in slaughtering, but made it apply only to cattle, not to fowl and rabbits, and not to reindeer "until the King shall so decide". For violation, provision was made for fines, the money to go to the crown. Slaughter of poultry without stunning was banned in 1989.

[[Norway]] banned religious slaughter without pre-stunning in 1929.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))<ref>Maduro, G.A., 2015. ''Ritual Slaughter and (in) equality''. p.47</ref>

Poland enacted mandatory stunning of animals before the drawing of blood since 1 January 1937, however by a ministerial decree an exception for ritual slaughter by religious groups has been enacted the same day.<ref>[http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19360700504 Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agricultural Reforms of August 26, 1936, issued in consultation with the Minister of Religious Denominations and Public Education and the Minister of the Interior on the methods and conditions of ritual slaughter of farm animals, 1936 no. 70 item 504]</ref> In 1938 the Polish Sejm passed a bill outlawing the exception for religious groups but it has not been accepted by the Senate and was never enacted into law.<ref>Out of 199 Sejm Members present: 70 voted for the bill, 5 against and 124 abstained. [https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/historia/1534241,1,przedwojenne-spory-o-uboj-rytualny.read Andrzej Krajewski, Przedwojenne spory o ubój rytualny, 8 January 2013, polityka.pl (Polish)]</ref><ref>((Cite book |title=My Brother's Keeper ((ndash)) A History of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee 1929–1939 |publisher=The Jewish Publication Society of America |location=Philadelphia |year=1974 |first=Yehuda |last=Bauer |chapter=Prelude of the Holocaust ))</ref>

[[File:Ritual slaughter ban 1939 German-occupied Poland.jpg|thumb|250px|The ordinance of Governor-General of German-occupied Poland Hans Frank of October 26, 1939 banning the ritual slaughter of animals]]
[[Germany]] banned shechita nationwide three months after [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power in 1933. There had been a prior ban in the German state of [[Saxony]], and the [[League of Nations]] had supported the Jewish Community of [[Upper Silesia]] against Hitler in rejecting the attempts by German officials to confiscate shechita knives and ban Jewish slaughter there as had been done in the German Reich. Bans were introduced in all the countries which the [[Nazis]] occupied. The first was occupied Poland where the [[General Government|German Governor-General]] issued a decree completely outlawing ritual slaughter on October 26, 1939. Similar acts were enacted in the countries of the Axis allies: [[Italy]] and [[Hungary]].  Bans introduced by the German [[Third Reich]] and by [[Benito Mussolini]] were removed by Allied Command after the allies had won the second world war in Europe.<ref>''The Right to Practise Shehitah'' Berman et al</ref>

In ''Religious Freedom: The Right to Practice Shehitah'', Munk, Munk and Berman documented every ban introduced in every country in Europe up to 1946, and made 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 stave off bans on Jewish and Muslim slaughter.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

== Europe ==
In post-war [[Europe]], there are three main sources of animal welfare law, namely the conventions and the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECHR) of the [[Council of Europe]] (CoE), the legislation and [[Court of Justice of the European Union|Court of Justice (CJEU)]] of the [[European Union]] (EU), and the national legislation of European countries, all of which (except [[Belarus]] and Russia) are [[member states of the Council of Europe]], and 27 of which are [[member states of the European Union]]. While Council of Europe conventions and ECHR rulings only apply to Parties (that is, countries and the EU if they have signed and ratified the relevant treaties), EU legislation and CJEU rulings only apply to EU member states, and these sets of countries don't always overlap; moreover, not all Parties or EU member states may have (properly) implemented their CoE or EU obligations and commitments into national laws yet.

=== Council of Europe ===
((Quote box
 |quote  = "Each [[List of Council of Europe treaties|Contracting Party]] may authorise derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases:<br />– slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals..."
 |width  = 20%
 |align = right
 |source = – 1979 [[Slaughter Convention]] (Council of Europe treaty)
 |qalign = left
))

[[Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights]], which applies to all member states of the [[Council of Europe]] and came into effect in 1953, 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]]."<ref>Renucci, Jean-François. "Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights." ''Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion. Council of Europe'' (2005). p. 5</ref> Preliminary discussions of the Convention referred specifically to religious ritual slaughter bans.<ref name=inra>[http://www.inra.fr/internet/Departements/ESR/publications/cahiers/pdf/bergeaud.pdf New challenges for Islamic ritual slaughtering: a European perspective, F. Bergeaud-Blackler]<br />pages 9–10 "Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland as well as six Austrian provinces allow no exemption to pre-mortem stunning of the animal. Conversely, this exemption is granted in France, UK, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Conditions for exemption are not always the same in all countries. For instance, in Spain exemptions only apply to sheep and goats but not to cattle."<br />page 14 "Eventually, in 2002, the German constitutional court granted to a Muslim butcher the right to slaughter without stunning similarly to Jewish butchers"((dead link|date=June 2018))</ref>
As of 2020, the [[European Court of Human Rights]] has not ruled on whether legal requirements to stun animals before, during or after the cutting performed during ritual slaughter are compatible with the Convention.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Wills |first1=Joe |title=The Legal Regulation of Non-stun Slaughter: Balancing Religious Freedom, Non-discrimination and Animal Welfare |journal=Liverpool Law Review |date=2020 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=145–171 |doi=10.1007/s10991-020-09247-y |language=en |issn=1572-8625|doi-access=free))</ref>

The [[European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter]] (1979, revised 1991), another Council of Europe treaty, generally requires stunning before slaughter, but allows its Parties to permit exemptions for religious slaughter: "Each Contracting Party may authorise derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: – slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals...."<ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/slaughter/jour137_en.pdf Official Journal of the European Union L 137, 02/06/1988 p. 0027 – 0038] "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter"</ref>

=== European Union ===
((Quote box
 |quote  = "In order to promote animal welfare in the context of ritual slaughter, [[Member state of the European Union|Member States]] may, without infringing the fundamental rights enshrined in the [[Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union|Charter]], require a reversible stunning procedure which cannot result in the animal's death."
 |width  = 20%
 |align = right
 |source = – 2020 ruling [[European Court of Justice]] (EU institution)
 |qalign = left
))

There is no EU legal requirement for meat from unstunned animals to be labelled as such, and EU-wide proposals for mandatory labelling have been strongly resisted. This leads to confusion amongst consumers, who often cannot know whether certain products are the result of unstunned ritual slaughter.<ref name="Needham">((cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2012/120375/LDM_BRI(2012)120375_REV2_EN.pdf |title=Religious slaughter of animals in the EU |author=Christopher Needham |work=Library Briefing |publisher=European Parliament |date=15 November 2012 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref> The [[European Court of Justice]] has ruled in 2019 that the [[EU-organic production-regulation#Organic food logo|organic production logo of the European Union]] cannot be placed on meat derived from animals that have been slaughtered without prior stunning.<ref>((cite web |url=https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-02/cp190015en.pdf |title=Judgment in Case C-497/17 |author=European Court of Justice |work=Press release |date=26 February 2019 |access-date=17 December 2020))</ref>

The [[European Food Safety Authority]] (EFSA) recommended in 2004 that "due to the serious animal welfare concerns associated with slaughter without stunning, pre-cut stunning should always be performed".<ref>((Cite journal |last=Blokhuis |display-authors=etal |date=15 June 2004 |title=Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals |journal=The EFSA Journal |publisher=[[European Food Safety Authority]] |volume=45 |page=2 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2004.45 |doi-access=free ))</ref> The 22 June 2009 EU Slaughter Regulation, approved by the EU Agriculture Council, allowed religious slaughter without stunning to continue.<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2009/07/new-hit-and-miss-eu-slaughter-regulation |title=New hit-and-miss EU Slaughter Regulation |publisher=[[Compassion in World Farming]] |date=2 July 2009 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref>

The European Court of Justice has confirmed in 2018 that ritual slaughter without stunning may take place only in an approved slaughterhouse.<ref>((cite web |url=https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-05/cp180069en.pdf |title=Judgment in Case C-426/16 |author=European Court of Justice |work=Press release |date=29 May 2018 |access-date=17 December 2020))</ref> Moreover, on 17 December 2020 it ruled that member states of the European Union may require a reversible pre-cut stunning procedure in order to promote animal welfare.<ref>((cite web |url=https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/cp200163en.pdf |title=Judgment in Case C-336/19 |author=European Court of Justice |work=Press release |date=17 December 2020 |access-date=17 December 2020))</ref>

Some European states have banned unstunned ritual slaughter, while others have not. Meat from unstunned animals can be freely exported and imported between states in the [[Schengen Area]].((citation needed|date=May 2021))

=== EU member state laws ===
{| class="sortable wikitable"
|+ '''Legal requirements for ritual slaughter by EU member state'''
! State
! Requirement
! Since
! ! class="unsortable"| Notes
|-
| [[Austria]]
| ((Partial|Post-cut stunning required))
| 2004
| Animal Protection Act 2004 §32.<ref name="LOC">((cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php |title=Legal Restrictions on Religious Slaughter in Europe |publisher=Library of Congress |date=14 May 2018 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref>
|-
| [[Belgium]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))
| 2018/19
| [[Wallonia]] banned unstunned ritual slaughter in September 2018;<ref name="Greef"/> [[Flanders]] followed in January 2019.<ref name="Gerits"/> As of December 2020, [[Brussels]] is still debating a ban.<ref name="Clerfayt"/>
|-
| [[Bulgaria]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel">((cite web |url=http://www.dialrel.eu/images/factsheet-legislation.pdf |title=Legislation on religious slaughter |author=Silvio Ferrari, Rossella Bottoni |work=Factsheet |publisher=[[DIALREL]] |access-date=21 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909024118/http://dialrel.eu/images/factsheet-legislation.pdf |archive-date=9 September 2016 |url-status=dead ))</ref>
|-
| [[Croatia]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Cyprus]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| The Veterinary Services may grant a derogation on the general requirement of stunned slaughter to a competent religious authority.<ref name="LOC"/><ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Czech Republic]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Denmark]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))
| 2014
| Only stunned ritual slaughter is allowed.<ref name="Denmark"/> However, unstunned meat may be imported to Denmark, and Danish stunned meat is exported to some countries in the Middle East.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Estonia]]
| ((Partial|Post-cut stunning required))
|
| Post-cut stunning is allowed.<ref name="Rawlinson"/><ref name="LOC"/><ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Finland]]
| ((Included|Simultaneous stunning required))
| 1934<ref name="Finland1934"/>
| Cutting and stunning must happen simultaneously during ritual slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/><ref name="Dialrel"/> In [[Åland]], pre-cut stunning is required.<ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[France]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| Restrictions on ritual slaughter are permissible, but only if they do not prevent religious adherents from obtaining religiously slaughtered meat.((citation needed|date=June 2018))
|-
| [[Germany]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2002
| Islamic unstunned slaughter was banned in 1995, but legalised again in 2002.<ref name="GermanVets"/> It is illegal to export unstunned meat.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Greece]]
| ((Partial|Post-cut stunning required))
| 2017
| Animals other than poultry require post-cut stunning during ritual slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Hungary]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Ireland]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Italy]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Latvia]]
| ((Partial|Post-cut stunning required))
| 2009
| Post-cut stunning is allowed.<ref name="Needham"/><ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Lithuania]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2015
| Lithuania legalised unstunned ritual slaughter in 2015 in the midst of a trade war with [[Russia]].<ref name="LOC"/><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.dw.com/en/facing-russia-sanctions-lithuania-oks-ritual-slaughter/a-17948859 |title=Facing Russia sanctions, Lithuania OKs ritual slaughter |work=Deutsche Welle |date=23 September 2014 |access-date=6 October 2019))</ref>
|-
| [[Luxembourg]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2009
| Religious exemptions to the 1995 law to stun all animals before slaughter became available in 2009.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Malta]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Netherlands]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2011
| Since 2011, a veterinarian must be present<ref name="Needham"/> and since 2018, the animal must lose consciousness within 40 seconds, otherwise stunning is required.<ref name="Rubio">((Cite news |url=https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/deel-nederlandse-moslims-wil-offerfeest-boycotten~ab42e859/ |title=Deel Nederlandse moslims wil offerfeest boycotten |author=Abdel Ilah Rubio |work=Algemeen Dagblad |date=13 July 2018 |access-date=14 July 2018))</ref>
|-
| [[Poland]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2014
| A 2013 ban on unstunned slaughter on animal rights grounds was overturned in 2014 on religious freedom grounds.<ref name="PolandBBC"/>
|-
| [[Portugal]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Romania]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Slovakia]]
| ((Partial|Post-cut stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Slovenia]]
| ((Free|Ritual slaughter banned))
| 2012
| In 2012, Slovenia amended its Animal Welfare Act to ban all forms of ritual slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Spain]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 2007<ref name="Spain2007"/>
| Stunning requirements are dropped if these are "inconsistent with the rules of the respective religious rite".<ref name="Spain2007"/>
|-
| [[Sweden]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))
| 1988<ref name="Sweden1988"/>
| Only stunned slaughter is allowed; some Islamic slaughterhouses in Sweden consider this halal.<ref name="SwedenHalal"/>
|}
[[File:Ritual slaughter laws Europe map.svg|300px|thumb|Legal requirements for ritual slaughter in [[Europe]] (current):
((Legend|#FF0000|Stunning not required))
((Legend|#7CFC00|Post-cut stunning required))
((Legend|#00FFFF|Simultaneous stunning required))
((Legend|#5AAE61|Pre-cut stunning required))
((Legend|#0000FF|Ritual slaughter banned))
((Legend|#E6E6FA|No data))]]

==== Austria ====
A complete prohibition on unstunned ritual slaughter was ruled unconstitutional by the [[Austrian Constitutional Court]] on 17 December 1998, as pre-cut stunning was deemed too much of a limitation on freedom of religion and thought; however, the Court acknowledged that the freedom of religion and thought could be restricted if it violated other rights and freedoms.<ref>[https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_10018783_97B03028_00 ruling of 17.12.1998, nr. 15.394]</ref>

Post-cut stunned slaughter was introduced as the minimum in the province of [[Lower Austria]] in 2001.<ref name=aureport>[http://lawsdocbox.com/Immigration/75176337-European-commission-health-consumer-protection-directorate-general.html EU Commission report on Animal Health in Austria, p. 16.]</ref> The 2004 Animal Protection Act (Bundesgesetz über den Schutz der Tiere; Tierschutzgesetz – TSchG) made post-cut stunning the nationwide mandatory minimum.<ref name="LOC"/>

==== Belgium ====
Unstunned conventional slaughter was banned in [[Wallonia]] in June 2018; unstunned ritual slaughter was banned in September 2018.<ref name="Greef">((Cite news |url=http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2981474 |title=Wallonië verbiedt het onverdoofd slachten van dieren |author=Jos De Greef |work=DeRedactie.be |date=17 May 2017 |access-date=18 March 2018 |language=nl))</ref> Unstunned ritual slaughter was banned in [[Flanders]] in January 2019.<ref name="Gerits">((Cite news |url=http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.3011916# |title=Vlaams Parlement keurt verbod op onverdoofd slachten goed |author=Jan Gerits |work=DeRedactie.be |date=28 June 2017 |access-date=18 March 2018 |language=nl))</ref> [[Brussels]] still allows for unstunned ritual slaughter, but banned home slaughter in December 2017, and expected to debate a total ban on unstunned slaughter soon.<ref name="Knack">((Cite news |url=http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/brussels-gewest-krijgt-verbod-op-thuisslachten/article-normal-941433.html |title=Brussels Gewest krijgt verbod op thuisslachten |work=Knack |date=19 December 2017 |access-date=20 June 2018 |language=nl))</ref> Several Jewish and Islamic organisations challenged the Flemish ban at the Belgian Constitutional Court, which referred the matter to the European Court of Justice.<ref name="Clerfayt">((Cite news |url=https://www.bruzz.be/samenleving/clerfayt-over-verbod-onverdoofd-slachten-blaast-debat-brussel-nieuw-leven-2020-12-17 |title=Clerfayt over verbod onverdoofd slachten: 'Blaast debat in Brussel nieuw leven in' |work=[[Bruzz]] |date=17 December 2020 |access-date=18 December 2020 |language=nl))</ref> On 17 December 2020, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Flemish legal requirement of reversible stunned slaughter was not in violation of European Union law on religious freedom, and that EU member states have the right to introduce such requirements in order to promote animal welfare.<ref name="Clerfayt"/> In response, Brussels Minister of Animal Welfare [[Bernard Clerfayt]] stated that this ruling reinvigorated the debate on mandatory stunning in the Brussels Capital Region, and called for a 'serene discussion with all parties involved to find a good balance between animal welfare and freedom of religion.'<ref name="Clerfayt"/>

==== Denmark ====
In February 2014, [[Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (Denmark)|Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries]] [[Dan Jørgensen]] signed a regulation which banned ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning.<ref name="Denmark">((cite web |url=https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/Animal/AnimalWelfare/Slaughter_of_animals/Pages/default.aspx |title=Welfare at slaughter |date=19 February 2014 |publisher=Danish Veterinary and Food Administration |access-date=22 February 2014 |archive-date=26 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140226175114/https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/Animal/AnimalWelfare/Slaughter_of_animals/Pages/default.aspx |url-status=dead ))</ref> Prior to this, religious groups could file for an exemption to the law that required stunning if they wanted to slaughter without prior stunning, although no groups had applied for such exemption. At the time, all halal slaughter in Denmark was performed with prior stunning, while kosher slaughter (which does not allow stunning) had not been practiced in Denmark since around 2004, all kosher meat being imported. In spite of this, the Muslim and Jewish Communities in Denmark strongly opposed the decree, arguing that it constituted an infringement upon religious freedom.<ref name = HuffPost>Nelson, Sarah C. (18 February 2014) [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/18/halal-kosher-slaughter-banned-denmark-animal-rights-before-religion_n_4807192.html & Kosher Slaughter Banned In Denmark As Minister Insists 'Animal Rights Come Before Religion'] The Huffungton Post, Retrieved 19 February 2014</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/14440/danish_government_bans_kosher_slaughter |title=Danish government bans kosher slaughter |date=13 February 2014 |publisher=World Jewish Congress |access-date=19 February 2014))</ref>

==== Finland ====
Finland's law on slaughter dates from the 1930s and allows post-stunning thereby permitting kosher slaughter and 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.<ref>Berman ''Shehitah'' 1941.</ref> In [[Åland]] the law prohibits bleeding to death unless animals have been previously stunned or directly killed.<ref name="convention"/>

Paragraph 4 of the 1934 Act (enacted 14 April 1934), reads:

<blockquote>It is forbidden to slaughter a domestic animal in any other way, except to render the animal insensible immediately before bleeding. ''Whenever religious reasons so demand'', let it be allowed by the Ministry of Agriculture, in such a way, that the animal is rendered insensible immediately after the arteries have been swiftly cut, but in such a case the veterinarian of the institution must be present personally to supervise the slaughtering<ref name="Finland1934">No 163. Statute for the Protection of Domestic Animals,'' Par. 4, "Suomen Asetuskokoelma," 1934</ref></blockquote>

During 1996, the debate over the practice of shechita (Jewish religious slaughter of animals) in Finland continued. Although a motion to pass a law prohibiting shechita (on animal rights grounds) was defeated in December 1995, thereby allowing the practice to continue in Finland (on the condition that the slaughtering takes place simultaneously with a stunning blow), parties opposed to shehitah were not satisfied. The debate has spanned several years, became an election issue during the 1995 general election and often took on an unpleasant tone, as the proponents of the ban (some of whom were politicians) equated shehitah with female circumcision and mutilation.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/finland/index.htm |title=Antisemitism and Xenophobia Today |access-date=3 January 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027082047/http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/finland/index.htm |archive-date=27 October 2012 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all ))</ref>

==== France ====
Ritual slaughter is permitted, with some restrictions.<ref name="convention"/>

In ''Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France'', 27 June 2000,<ref name=JewishLiturgical>[http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696615&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France], [[European Court of Human Rights]], No. 27417/95, 27 June 2000</ref> (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:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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:

<blockquote>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.<ref name="JewishLiturgical"/></blockquote>

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.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

==== Germany ====
On 15 January 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,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1761846.stm BBC News Tuesday, 15 January 2002 ''German court ends Muslim slaughter ban'']</ref> 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.<ref name=GermanCourt>[http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/rs20020115_1bvr178399en.html 1 BvR 1783/99 of 01/15/2002] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070612114942/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/rs20020115_1bvr178399en.html |date=12 June 2007 )), [[German Federal Constitutional Court]]</ref><ref name="GermanVets">((cite web|url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3474409,00.html |title=Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets &#124; Germany &#124; DW.DE &#124; 10.07.2008 |publisher=Deutsche Welle |date=10 July 2008 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref>
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:

<blockquote>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.<ref name="GermanCourt"/>
</blockquote>

==== Latvia ====
[[Latvia]] legalised ritual slaughter in 2009.<ref>[http://www.alhalal.eu/ Al Halal.eu]</ref> Halal meat products are exported to Sweden and animals are slaughtered using post-cut stunning.<ref name="Needham"/>

==== Luxembourg ====
[[Luxembourg]] has required since at least 1995 that animals be stunned prior to being slaughtered, and previously did not provide any exception for religious slaughter.  The 1995 regulation has since been repealed and replaced by one that transposes European Union Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing into Luxembourger law.  Under this new regulation, there now is an exception for religious slaughter, subject to authorization by the government upon written request on the part of the religious authority.<ref name="LOC"/>

==== Netherlands ====
Ritual slaughter is permitted, and regulated by a special convention concerning ritual slaughter.<ref name="convention"/>
The [[Party for the Animals]] ([[Dutch language|Dutch]]: ''Partij voor de Dieren''; PvdD)  was voted into the [[House of Representatives (Netherlands)|Dutch Parliament's Lower House]] with two MPs in 2006, increased to 6 MPs in 2017. Their election program had been to introduce an effective ban on ritual slaughter: Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha. The bill was passed in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament with 116 votes to 30. Debate over the matter swiftly became a focus of animosity towards the [[Netherlands]]' 1.2 million-strong Muslim community.((verification needed|date=March 2014)) The country's Jewish population is comparatively small at 50,000.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

Following months of debate a last-minute concession was offered—the Muslim and Jewish communities would have a year to provide evidence that animals slaughtered by traditional methods do not experience greater pain than those that are stunned before they are killed.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13947163 BBC News]</ref>

[[Jonathan Sacks|Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks]] visited the Netherlands in May 2011 to lobby against the ban, arguing that pre-stunning failed in up to 10 per cent of cases and that caused more pain than the swift cutting of the throat by a razor-sharp knife. He blamed the vote on "a mischievous campaign by the animal rights lobby, based on emotive images and questionable science."((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

Dr. Joe Regenstein of [[Cornell University]] prepared a [http://www.kosjerslachten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Preliminary-Report-Regenstein-2305111.pdf Preliminary Report] for the Dutch government in May 2011.<ref>((cite news |title=Dutch vote to ban religious slaughter of animals |website=[[Reuters]] |date=28 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230409233720/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-religion-slaughter-idUSTRE75R4E420110628 |archive-date=2023-04-09 |url-status=live |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-religion-slaughter-idUSTRE75R4E420110628))</ref> The [[Senate (Netherlands)|Dutch Senate (Upper House)]] held a long debate, and voted down the bill. Ritual slaughter is to proceed as before, with a provision for post-cut stunning should the animal survive for more than 40 seconds. According to various individuals and groups, the stunned animal will be neither halal or kosher.<ref>[http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/50995/the-first-cut-kosher-killing-ban-shocks-jews Jewish Chronicle 11 June 2011 The first cut:  Kosher killing ban shocks Jews]</ref><ref>((cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13947163|title=Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals|date=28 June 2011|publisher=BBC News|access-date=28 June 2011))</ref><ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-religion-slaughter-idUSTRE75R4E420110628 14 December 2011 Reuters: Dutch vote to ban religious slaughter of animals. By Ivana Sekularac. Amsterdam Tue 28 June 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/51017/the-dutch-ban-smacks-racism Jewish Chronicle, Comment. 30 June 2011. The Dutch Ban Smacks of Racism]</ref><ref>((cite web|url=http://www.nos.nl/artikel/322079-verbod-rituele-slacht-van-de-baan.html|title=Verbod rituele slacht van de baan|date=14 December 2011|work=[[nos.nl]]|access-date=14 December 2011|language=nl))</ref><ref>[http://uscmediareligion.org/theStory/4252/Dutch-Ban-Ritual-Slaughter-Doubt-Senate-Considers-Jewish-Muslim-Objections Dutch Ban on Ritual Slaughter in Doubt as Senate Considers Jewish, Muslim Objections Wednesday 14 December 2011]</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/20130222221016/http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/ritual-slaughter-ban-rejected-again-dutch-senate 12 June 2012 Ritual salaughter ban rejected again in Dutch Senate. Radio Netherlands]</ref><ref>[http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/06/19/3098491/dutch-senate-scraps-ban-on-kosher-slaughter] 19 June 2012 Dutch senate scraps ban on kosher slaughter JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)</ref><ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/netherlands-rejects-bill-banning-kosher-slaughter-jewish-groups-claim-victory.premium-1.439735# Ha'aretz: Netherlands Rejects Bill Banning Kosher Slaughter. Jewish Groups Claim Victory.]</ref><ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-compromise-ritual-slaughter |title=A new covenant aims to allow Jews and Muslims to continue to perform ritual slaughter of animals while answering the broadly supported call to prevent animal suffering. ''Radio Netherlands International'' 30 January 2012 |access-date=30 January 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120621155908/http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-compromise-ritual-slaughter |archive-date=21 June 2012 |url-status=dead ))</ref>
Only the [[Party for Freedom|Freedom Party]] of [[Geert Wilders]], the Socialist Party, and the Animal Party wanted to forbid ritual slaughter in The Netherlands.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

Since 1 January 2018, a new regulation has been implemented that animals must lose consciousness within 40 seconds, otherwise stunning is required. Rumours spread that some Islamic abattoirs had started to stun animals before the cut, prompting conservative Muslims in July to raise concerns whether the meat would still be halal. The Utrecht Mosques Partnership called for a boycott of all Dutch meat during [[Eid al-Adha]] in August, forsaking the traditional sacrifice. They recommended having an animal sacrificed abroad and the meat imported until the availability of what they consider 'halal' meat within the Netherlands can be guaranteed. However, the Associations of Imams in the Netherlands (VIN) criticised the move, stressing the importance of ritual sacrifice in Islam, and saying the boycott 'violated divine law'.<ref name="Rubio"/>

==== Poland ====
[[Poland]] banned slaughter of non-stunned animals in January, 2013, thus losing to neighbouring countries, such as [[Lithuania]], an annual half-a-billion [[euro]] export trade to [[Israel]], [[Turkey]], [[Egypt]], [[Iran]] and other Muslim-majority nations.<ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.krakowpost.com/article/6918 |title=''Ritual Slaughter Continues in Krakow Despite Ban'' Krakow Post, 16 August 2013 |access-date=24 October 2013 |archive-date=29 October 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200131/http://www.krakowpost.com/article/6918 |url-status=dead ))</ref> The claim was made by animal rights activists that kosher slaughter represented cruelty to animals.<ref>((cite web|title = Kosher Slaughter Ban Kills $1.3B Poland Industry - Breaking News|url = http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/181010/kosher-slaughter-ban-kills-13b-poland-industry/|website = The Forward| date=23 July 2013 |access-date = 2015-10-29))</ref> The legal developments were complex, involving a government amendment to a law requiring all animals to be stunned prior to slaughter. The amendment allowed an exception to protect the religious freedoms of Poland's tiny Jewish and Muslim communities.((citation needed|date=June 2018)) The Jewish and Muslim [[Lipka Tatars]] communities in Poland jointly protested against the ban.<ref>[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501674.2015.961879 Robertson Huffnagle, Holly. "“Peaceful coexistence?” Jewish and Muslim neighbors on the eve of the Holocaust." East European Jewish Affairs 45.1 (2015): 42-64.]</ref>

After pressure from animal rights groups, the [[Constitutional Tribunal (Poland)|Constitutional Court]] quashed the amendment on the grounds that it is not permissible to amend a law so that the original intention of the law is contradicted. In December 2014, the Polish Constitutional Court overturned the ban on kosher and halal slaughter since the protection of animals "does not take priority over constitutional guarantees of religious freedom," with Judge [[:pl:Maria Gintowt-Jankowicz|Maria Gintowt-Jankowicz]] stating in her final verdict that "the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion which includes the carrying out of all activities, practices, rites and rituals which have a religious character."<ref name="PolandBBC">[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30412551 ''Polish ban on kosher slaughter of animals is overturned'' BBC]</ref>

In 2020, The Polish government had plans to ban the export of kosher and halal meat.<ref>((cite web | url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/polish-parliament-to-debate-bill-on-ending-export-of-kosher-halal-meat-641574 | title=Polish parliament to debate bill on ending export of kosher, halal meat | date=9 September 2020 ))</ref> They would later drop this plan.<ref>((cite web | url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/poland-scraps-bill-barring-ritual-slaughter-vows-to-introduce-new-one/ | title=Poland scraps bill barring ritual slaughter, vows to introduce new one | website=[[The Times of Israel]] ))</ref><ref>((cite web | url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-parliament-drops-bills-proposal-to-ban-export-of-kosher-and-halal-meat/ | title=Polish parliament drops bill's proposal to ban export of kosher and halal meat | website=[[The Times of Israel]] ))</ref>

==== Slovenia ====
In 2012, Slovenia amended its Animal Welfare Act to ban all forms of ritual slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/> A group of Muslims requested the Constitutional Court to review the law, arguing unstunned ritual slaughter was a key part of the Islamic religion and therefore protected by the freedom of religion. However, the Court unanimously upheld the Act in 2018, stating that 'the Constitution did not allow easily preventable suffering to be inflicted on animals without a justified cause', and that this provision did 'not disproportionally interfere' with religious freedom.<ref>((Cite news |url=http://www.total-slovenia-news.com/news/1303-slovenia-s-constitutional-court-rules-ban-on-halal-slaughter-legal |title=Slovenia's Constitutional Court Rules Ban on Halal Slaughter Legal |work=Total Slovenia News |date=24 May 2018 |access-date=27 June 2018))</ref>

==== 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:

<blockquote>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,<ref>Organic Law 7/1980 of 5 July, Liberty Religious, Art. 3.</ref> 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.<ref name="Spain2007">((in lang|es)) ((cite web |url=http://www.animallaw.info/nonus/statutes/stesawl2007.htm |title=Ley 32/2007, de 7 de noviembre, para el cuidado de los animales, en su explotación, transporte, experimentación y sacrificio |publisher=Animal Legal & Historical Center |access-date=22 June 2018 |language=es))</ref></blockquote>

==== Sweden ====
All domestic animals must be stunned before slaughter.<ref name="Sweden1988">[http://www.government.se/sb/d/574/a/90310 "Swedish Animal Welfare Act, 1988"] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140728171604/http://www.government.se/sb/d/574/a/90310 |date=28 July 2014 )) "Domestic animals shall be stunned before being bled prior to slaughter. No other measures may be taken in connection with slaughter until the animal is dead."</ref> Ritual slaughter of cattle without stunning has been prohibited since 1937, and of poultry since 1989.<ref name="convention"/> Halal slaughter of stunned animals takes place in Sweden.<ref name="SwedenHalal">Eurogroup for Animals (2009) Religious slaughter – state of play.</ref><ref>[http://www.jta.org/1989/03/08/archive/sweden-postpones-move-to-ban-the-kosher-slaughter-of-poultry Sweden postpones move to ban the kosher slaughter of poultry]</ref>

In the rest of Europe the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country. While some countries have introduced bans, other countries—the US, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands—introduced legislation protecting shehitah.<ref name=convention>[http://www.governo.it/bioetica/eng/Ritualslaughtering_AnimalSuffering.pdf Italian bioethic committee Report on Ritual slaughtering and animal suffering], Annex 3 ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071007172944/http://www.governo.it/bioetica/eng/Ritualslaughtering_AnimalSuffering.pdf |date=7 October 2007 ))</ref>

=== Non-EU CoE member state laws ===
{| class="sortable wikitable"
|+ '''Legal requirements for ritual slaughter by non-EU CoE member state'''
! Country
! Requirement
! Since
! ! class="unsortable"| Notes
|-
| [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| Requirements that animals be stunned before slaughter do not apply to religious groups.<ref>((cite web |title=Rulebook on the protection of animals during slaughter or killing ("Official gazette of B&H", No 46/10) |url=http://sluzbenilist.ba/page/akt/N8mQFm2HRNQ=))</ref>
|-
| [[Iceland]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))<ref name=treaty>[http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/102.htm European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter, Explanatory Report], article 17</ref>
| 2013
| All halal meat produced in Iceland is stunned and certified by the Muslim Association of Iceland. Unstunned ritually slaughtered meat may be imported to Iceland, stunned halal meat may be exported.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[Liechtenstein]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))<ref>Lerner, Pablo and Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai (2007) [http://www.istitutobioetica.org/Bioetica%20sociale/multiculturalismo/Lerner%20Rabello%20Macellazione.htm The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering...] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620232709/http://www.istitutobioetica.org/Bioetica%20sociale/multiculturalismo/Lerner%20Rabello%20Macellazione.htm |date=20 June 2018 )) The Journal of Law and Religion, Volume XXII, 2006–2007, Number 1, Retrieved 20 February 2014</ref>
| 2010
| All animals ''except ritually slaughtered poultry'' must be stunned before slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/>
|-
| [[North Macedonia]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Norway]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))<ref name="Rawlinson"/><ref name="LOC"/>
| 1929
|
|-
| [[Switzerland]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))<ref name="Rawlinson"/><ref name=treaty/><ref name=swstate>[https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71411.htm US Religious Freedom Report 2006 for Switzerland]</ref>
| 1893
| All animals ''except ritually slaughtered poultry'' must be stunned before slaughter.<ref name="LOC"/> A 1978 law allows for the import of meat from unstunned slaughtered animals from other countries.
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[United Kingdom]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| Legality is hotly debated.<ref name="Wyatt"/>
|}

==== Norway ====
((Over-quotation|section|date=June 2018))
"The debate on Jewish religious slaughter in Norway first evolved in the animal protection movement in the late 1890s, but did not become a public matter until the Jews of Norway's capital Kristiania (now Oslo) were forced by the city authorities to abandon the practice of kosher slaughter (shehitah) within the city borders in 1913. From that moment and until the law prohibiting the practice on a national level was adopted by the Norwegian parliament on 12 June 1929, the debate made the headlines on several occasions in Norwegian newspapers in the interwar years. Hundreds of articles, letters and editorials discussed the case which was known as the «Schächtning-affair».1 The issue received especially much attention from the nationalist right-wing of the Agrarian movement, and the Jewish slaughter practice became subject to a massive campaign from the Agrarian press and from Agrarian party members of parliament. In its final phase during the 1920s, many of the critics were also heavily influenced by the modern anti-Semitic ideology that had evolved in Germany since the late 1870s. One of the most quoted statements from the debate was made by the Agrarian MP, and later prime minister [[Jens Hundseid]] (1883–1965) during the conclusive parliamentary session on 12 June 1929: «We have no obligation to deliver our domestic animals to the cruelties of the Jews, we have not invited the Jews to this country, and we have no obligation to provide the Jews animals to their religious orgies»."<ref>Andreas Snildal ''Anti-Semitism without Hatred? The Animal Protection Movement and the Semantics of Kosher Slaughter in Norway 1895–1913''</ref>

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.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

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 [[Antisemitism in Norway|antisemitic]] individuals. Those opposing the ban included [[Fridtjof Nansen]], but the division on the issue crossed party lines in all mainstream parties, except [[Senterpartiet|the Farmer's Party]], which was principled in its opposition to schechita.<ref>((cite book|last=Johansen|first=Per Ola|title=Oss selv nærmest|year=1984|chapter-url=http://www.jus.uio.no/ikrs/tjenester/kunnskap/kriminalpolitikk/aktuelt/Tema/jodeforfolgelse/ossselvnaermest_hele.pdf|publisher=Gyldendal Norsk Forlag|location=Oslo|language=no|isbn=8205150621|pages=64–68|chapter=Korstoget mot schächtningen))((Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes ))</ref>

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 11 February 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 claimed that schechita was no more inhumane than other slaughter methods. [[Carl Joachim Hambro (politician)|C J Hambro]] was one of those most appalled by the discussion, claiming that "where animal rights are protected to an exaggerated extent, it usually is done with the help of human sacrifice"<ref>Johansen, p. 69</ref>((verify source|date=September 2012|didn't he say: let's not make the statement true that...))

==== Switzerland ====
((Further|Animal welfare and rights in Switzerland))
The Swiss banned unstunned slaughter in [[Swiss animal protection referendum, 1893|1893 after a plebiscite]] so that a law requiring stunning prior to blood letting (exsanguination) was included in the Swiss Constitution. This required every abattoir to stun animals before slaughter, including Jewish and Islamic ones. The plebiscite had been preceded by a long anti-Semitic campaign, in which Jews were supported by Catholics, who had suffered under [[Otto von Bismarck]] in his anti-Catholic ''[[Kulturkampf]]''.((Citation needed|date=June 2018)) Catholic priests gave sermons encouraging their parishioners to vote against the effective ban, and the results of the referendum showed that French-speaking Cantons had voted against the ban, but that German-speaking Protestant cantons had voted for the ban.((Citation needed|date=June 2018))

<blockquote>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.<ref name=Modiya>[http://modiya.nyu.edu/handle/1964/489 Anti-Shechita], Modiya, 2004?, accessed 18 September 2006</ref>
</blockquote>

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."<ref>((cite web|title=SwitzerlandInternational Religious Freedom Report 2006|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71411.htm|access-date=7 November 2010))</ref>

The Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), founded in 1904, regards the 1893 ban on unstunned slaughter as antisemitic.<ref name="Aebischer">((Cite news |url=https://www.jta.org/2017/08/16/news-opinion/world/swiss-lawmakers-to-vote-on-banning-import-of-kosher-halal-meat |title=Swiss lawmakers to vote on banning import of kosher, halal meat |work=Jewish Telegraphic Agency |date=16 August 2017 |access-date=21 June 2018))</ref>

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."<ref name=Modiya/>

===== Proposals to extend ban to imports =====
Switzerland has considered extending the ban in order to prohibit importing kosher products. The Swiss Animal Association((Citation needed|date=June 2018|reason=Group appears not to exist. Is it the Schweizer Tierschutz perhaps?)) called for a referendum on banning kosher imports.<ref name=JWR>Dickter, Adam, [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0702/euro_kosher.asp Fear over European kosher bans], World Jewish Review, July 2002</ref>((better source needed|date=June 2018)) Christopher Blocher, a cabinet minister for the [[Swiss People's Party]], has supported calls to ban the import of kosher and halal meat.<ref name=RSW>Wistrich, Robert S., [http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/wistrich.pdf "European Anti-Semitism Reinvents Itself"] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502002625/http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/wistrich.pdf |date=2014-05-02 )), American Jewish Committee, 2005, pg 10</ref> "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, president of ''Verein gegen Tierfabrik (Association against animal factories)''<ref>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/swiss.html Switzerland: The struggle for Sh'chitah (Jewish Virtual Library)]</ref> who has several convictions for racial offenses, including the comparison of Jewish ritual slaughter of animals with the Nazi treatment of Jews,<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/switzerland.htm |title=The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism |access-date=7 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121119113047/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/switzerland.htm |archive-date=19 November 2012 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all ))</ref> 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 quoting vegetarian and literature Nobel Laureate [[Isaac Bashevis Singer]]<ref>Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson, Ph.D., describes disturbing parallels between how the Nazis treated their victims and how modern society treats animals. The title is taken from the Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself a vegetarian: "In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.[https://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Treblinka-Treatment-Animals-Holocaust/dp/1930051999#_ Eternal Treblinka]</ref> comparing kosher slaughter to the methods used by Nazis in concentration camps, but denies that his motives are anti-semitic."<ref name="VegansRepresent">[http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-2322.html Transcription: Ritual Slaughter Ban], Living on Earth, republished by Vegans Represent 10 June 2003, accessed 18 September 2006</ref>

In June 2017, MP Matthias Aebischer ([[Social Democratic Party of Switzerland|Social Democratic Party]]) proposed a bill to ban the import of meat from animals that have undergone ritual slaughter. The bill also included a ban on [[foie gras]], which is [[Foie gras controversy|controversial]] because it is produced by forcefeeding geese which is widely considered cruel, despite being popular amongst especially French-speaking Swiss.<ref name="Aebischer"/>

==== Turkey ====
Stunning is not required in Turkey.<ref name="Dialrel"/> Animal welfare organisations such as Eyes on Animals have been campaigning to raise awareness amongst slaughterhouses, religious leaders and consumers that stunning does not contravene Islamic law, and to voluntarily choose to perform or promote stunning, or buy products obtained through stunned ritual slaughter. In 2019, the large conservative sect İsmailağa publicly declared that stunning animals is halal, and as of July 2020, the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture was considering the introduction of a law that would mandate the painless killing of animals. Some companies have already started stunning animals because it's quicker, safer and cleaner, while the public is slowly accepting meat from stunned animals as halal.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/31/animal-stunning-slowly-being-accepted-by-turkeys-halal-butchers-say-activists |title=Animal stunning slowly being accepted by Turkey's halal butchers, say activists |author=Bethan McKernan |work=The Guardian |date=31 July 2020 |access-date=20 August 2020))</ref>

==== United Kingdom ====
Unstunned religious slaughter is legal in the UK. However, its legality is hotly debated by various religious and political groups and individuals. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, Jews and non-Jews are divided over the question whether meat from stunned animals is to be considered halal or kosher, and thus whether a ban on unstunned slaughter would or would not constitute a violation of the religious freedom of those Jews and Muslims who claim to have a right to consume meat from unstunned animals. Meanwhile, some animal welfare activists and groups argue that slaughter should be banned entirely, regardless of alleged justification.<ref name="Wyatt">((Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31411219 |title=Should religious slaughter be banned in the UK? |author=Caroline Wyatt |work=BBC News |date=16 February 2015 |access-date=20 June 2018))</ref>

In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the British government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, stated the way Jewish Kosher and Muslim Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals, and recommend the British government to ban Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter (shechita and dhabihah).<ref name="FAWC">((Cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm |title=Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end' |work=BBC News |date=10 June 2003 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref> The British government rejected FAWC's advice.((Citation needed|date=June 2018)) This elicited responses from shechita uk, and from Dr S. D. Rosen<ref>[https://www.shechitauk.org/shechita-conformity-confrontation/ Shechita Conformity & Confrontation]</ref> This is a continuation of a public debate that dates back to the founding or the Animal Protection Societies in the 1890s.<ref>Robin Judd ''The Politics of Beef: Animal Advocacy and the Kosher Butchering Debates in Germany'' Jewish Social Studies ''New Series, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 117–150''</ref><ref>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/stunning-bodies-animal-slaughter-judaism-and-the-meaning-of-humanity-in-imperial-germany/4EE66EA94C1C45EE1EDEA40D3F7CE55A ''Stunning Bodies: Animal Slaughter, Judaism, and the Meaning of Humanity in Imperial Germany'' Dorothee Brantz]</ref>
S. D. Rosen's conclusion in a ''Viewpoint'' article in ''The Veterinary Record'' is that "Shechita (kosher slaughter) is a painless and humane method of animal slaughter".<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8483053_Physiological_insights_into_Shechita S. D. Rosen ''Physiological insights into Shechia'']</ref>

[[Food Standards Agency]] figures from 2012 showed that more than 80% of animals are stunned before slaughter for halal meat in the UK.<ref name="NSS2014"/>

The debate in the UK resurfaced in spring 2014 after Denmark prohibited unstunned slaughter in February that year.<ref name="Jones2014">((Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/halal-shechita-politics-animal-slaughter |title=Halal, shechita and the politics of animal slaughter |author=Sam Jones |work=The Guardian |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref> It began with a 6 March 2014 article of three page long in ''[[The Times]]'' by the [[British Veterinary Association]]'s president John Blackwell, who claimed that in ritual slaughter the animal must be alive when its throat is cut and die from loss of blood, annually causing more than 600,000 animals in Britain unnecessary suffering.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-ritual-slaughter-of-animals-says-top-vet-fsjcv6p9hgt |title=Stop ritual slaughter of animals, says top vet |author=Dominic Kennedy |work=The Times |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref><ref>((Cite book |last=Humphery |first=Angela |date=2014 |title=Memoirs of a Party Animal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dHpdCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT11 |publisher=Lulu Press |page=11 |isbn=9781326119195 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref> Vice-president Jonathan Arkush of the [[Board of Deputies of British Jews]] confronted Blackwell the same day on ''[[Today (BBC Radio 4)|The Today Programme]]''<ref name="Jones2014"/><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/06/halal-kosher-ritual-slaughter_n_4909232.html |title=Reform Halal And Kosher? Britain's Top Vet, John Blackwell, Calls For End To Ritual Slaughter |work=The Huffington Post |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-top-vet-sparks-controversy-with-call-for-ban-on-slashing-animals-throats-in-ritual-9173258.html |title=Britain's top vet sparks controversy with call for ban on slashing animals' throats in 'ritual' slaughters for halal and kosher meat products |author=Rob Williams |work=The Independent |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref> by saying that "animals that are killed for the Jewish and Muslim markets do ''not'' bleed to death." He claimed that cutting an animal's throat "instantly" renders an animal "insensible to pain and unconscious", while on the other hand "pre-stunning fails to stun in between 9 and 31% of cases, depending on which animal welfare charity you go to", attributing the 9% figure to the [[Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals|RSPCA]].<ref name="Today2014"/>((rp|at=4:13)) Blackwell retorted that there is strong scientific evidence that, depending on the species, the animal remains conscious after the throat cut for an average of 7 seconds in [[sheep]] to up to 2 minutes in [[cattle]], which is "unacceptable from a welfare point of view".<ref name="Today2014"/>((rp|at=5:02)) Some Muslim and Jewish commentators accused Blackwell and his supporters of anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic prejudice, but Blackwell insisted that he respected religious beliefs and that "the Danish unilateral banning [was done] purely for animal welfare reasons, which is right". Numerous animal welfare societies backed Blackwell's position. [[National Secular Society]] campaigner Stephen Evans argued that the scientific consensus was clear that stunning was better for animal welfare, and that it was "therefore both reasonable and appropriate to suggest that, unless religious communities can agree on more humane slaughter methods, their right to religious freedom should, in this instance, be limited in the interests of animal welfare."<ref name="NSS2014">((cite web |url=https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/03/leading-vet-calls-for-an-end-to-religious-slaughter |title=Leading vet calls for an end to religious slaughter |publisher=National Secular Society |date=6 March 2014 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref>

On the day the controversy began on 6 April 2014, it was reported that about 80 to 85% of halal meat produced by the Muslim community in the United Kingdom was pre-stunned.<ref name="NSS2014"/><ref name="Today2014"/>((rp|at=3:38)) However, the percentage of unstunned slaughtered animals within the British halal meat industry grew by around 60% in the ten months after this controversy began, following a Muslim campaign to change the practice.<ref name=telegraph>((Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11378667/Sharp-rise-in-halal-abattoirs-slaughtering-animals-without-stunning-them-first.html |title=Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first |author=Bill Gardner |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date=29 January 2015 |access-date=22 June 2018))</ref>

== Other countries ==
In the rest of Europe the legal situation of ritual slaughter differs from country to country. While some countries have introduced bans, other countries—the US, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands—introduced legislation protecting shehitah.<ref name=convention/>

{| class="sortable wikitable"
|+ '''Legal requirements for ritual slaughter by country'''
! Country
! Requirement
! Since
! ! class="unsortable"| Notes
|-
| [[Australia]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))
|
| Except for 4 slaughterhouses which may slaughter sheep unstunned and cattle post-cut, all animals in Australia must be stunned.<ref name="Dialrel"/>
|-
| [[Canada]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="CanadaSFCR"/>
|-
| [[New Zealand]]
| ((Yes|Pre-cut stunning required))
| 2018
| According to the Commercial Slaughter Code of Welfare, updated on 1 October 2018, all religious slaughter in New Zealand requires pre-cut stunning, with the exception of Jewish (kosher) slaughter of poultry.<ref name="NZcode"/>
|-
| [[United States]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
| 1958
|
|-
| [[Uruguay]]
| ((No|No stunning required))
|
| <ref name="Dialrel"/>
|}

=== Canada ===
Unstunned ritual slaughter is legal in Canada, provided that the food animals do not otherwise experience any other 'avoidable suffering'.<ref>((Cite web |url=https://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/food-specific-requirements-and-guidance/meat-products-and-food-animals/ritual-slaughter/eng/1519849364873/1519849365434 |title=Ritual slaughter without stunning |work=Canadian Food Inspection Agency |publisher=Government of Canada |date=3 June 2019 |access-date=1 October 2019))</ref> According to the [[Safe Food for Canadians Regulations]] (latest revision enacted in June 2019), section 141, any licensed slaughterer must stun food animals either by concussion (a), electric shock (b) or gassing (c); however, section 144 exempts licensed ritual slaughterers from the obligation of section 141 to first stun food animals before cutting their throats in order 'to comply with Judaic or Islamic law'.<ref name="CanadaSFCR">((Cite web |url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-108/page-15.html#h-844803 |title=Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. Part: Commodity-specific Requirements. Division 7: Meat Products and Food Animals. Subdivision C: Humane Treatment |work=Justice Laws Website |publisher=Government of Canada |date=21 June 2019 |access-date=1 October 2019))</ref>

=== India ===
((Further|Animal welfare and rights in India))
The 1960 [[Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act]] is the legal basis of animal protection in India. Provision 11 states that it is illegal for 'any person... [to treat] any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated', and that such mistreatment is punishable with fines or prison sentences.<ref name="1960 Act">((Cite web|title=THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960. As amended by Central Act 26 of 1982.|access-date=14 February 2017|url=http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/No.59.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=1 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140401222504/http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/No.59.pdf))</ref> However, it also states that this does not apply 'to the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering'.<ref name="1960 Act"/> Moreover, provision 28 states 'Nothing contained in this Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.'<ref name="1960 Act"/> theoretically leaving open the option of [[stunning|unstunned]] [[ritual slaughter]]. On the other hand, stunning is required for animal slaughterhouses according to provision 6 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, and provision 3 states that slaughter is only permitted in recognised or licensed slaughterhouses.<ref>((Cite web|url=http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind40037.pdf|title=Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001|publisher=Government of India|date=26 March 2001|access-date=26 February 2020))</ref> The Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011 provides more precise stipulations surrounding the welfare of animals during the slaughter process, including that 'Animals are slaughtered by being first stunned and then exsanguinated (bled out). (...) Stunning before slaughter should be mandatory.'<ref name="FSSAI2011">((Cite web |url=https://archive.fssai.gov.in/dam/jcr:b37feea8-d1d6-4a12-800a-e9290ea72e1d/Licensing_Regulations.pdf |title=Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011 |author=Food Safety and Standards Authority of India |work=[[The Gazette of India]] |publisher=[[Ministry of Health and Family Welfare]] |date=1 August 2011 |access-date=28 February 2020 |author-link=Food Safety and Standards Authority of India |archive-date=24 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024135704/https://archive.fssai.gov.in/dam/jcr:b37feea8-d1d6-4a12-800a-e9290ea72e1d/Licensing_Regulations.pdf |url-status=dead )) (pdf)</ref> It further stipulates which three methods are legal ([[Inert gas asphyxiation#Animal slaughter|((CO2)) asphyxiation]], mechanical concussion (gunshot or [[captive bolt pistol]]), and [[electronarcosis]]), the conditions in which these should be performed (such as separate spaces out of sight of other animals, with the proper equipment and the requirement that 'all operators involved are well trained and have a positive attitude towards the welfare of animals'), and explains why these are conducive to animal welfare.<ref name="FSSAI2011"/> The regulation does not mention any exceptions or exemptions for religious or ritual slaughter.<ref name="FSSAI2011"/>

According to ''[[The Times of India]]'', as of 2012, most abbatoirs in India employed [[electronarcosis]] at 70 [[volt]]s to render animals unconscious before slaughter.<ref name="Sinha">((Cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Science-of-meat/articleshow/11672654.cms |title=Science of meat |author=Kounteya Sinha, Amit Bhattacharya and Anuradha Varma |work=The Times of India |date=27 March 2012 |access-date=27 February 2020))</ref> As for unstunned [[ritual slaughter]], scientific, religious and popular opinion remains divided on the question whether the [[dhabihah]] method (generally preferred by Muslims) or the [[jhatka]] method (generally preferred by Sikhs) leads to less pain and stress and a quicker death for the animal in question.<ref name="Sinha"/><ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.pragyata.com/mag/halal-versus-jhatka-a-scientific-review-666 |title=Halal versus Jhatka: A scientific review |author=Souvik Dey |work=Pragyata |date=12 January 2019 |access-date=27 February 2020))</ref> Indian Muslim scholars also disagree whether meat from animals that are stunned prior to ritual slaughter is to be considered [[halal]], with some saying it is, and others saying it is not.<ref name="Sinha"/>

=== New Zealand ===
In May 2010, [[Minister of Agriculture (New Zealand)|Minister of Agriculture]] [[David Carter (politician)|David Carter]] issued a ban on kosher slaughter, rejecting the recommendations of his advisors.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137759#.UIQtdGeJmSo |title=New Zealand Bans Kosher Slaughtering |date=30 May 2010 |access-date=21 October 2012 |last=Ben Gedalyahu |first=Tzvi |work=[[Arutz Sheva]]))</ref> At that time, halal slaughterhouses were already required to stun their animals prior to killing.<ref name="Carter"/> Carter held shares in a firm which exports meat and prior to instituting the ban he met senior managers of the firm who wanted a ban on kosher slaughter to reduce their competition.<ref name="Carter"/> In November 2010, the ban on kosher slaughter of chickens was overturned, but the ban on kosher slaughter of beef was still in effect and kosher beef had to be imported from Australia.<ref name="Carter">((cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10690598 |title=MP Carter makes quick u-turn |date=28 November 2010 |access-date=21 October 2012 |last=Fisher |first=David |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]]))</ref> In June 2011 the World Jewish Congress adopted a resolution calling on the New Zealand Government to abrogate its ban on kosher slaughter.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/uploads/materials/e334cdbf9d816489a47b2e08e09ff5a11d12cdee.pdf |title=RESOLUTION: GB1106-5 |date=19–21 June 2011 |publisher=[[World Jewish Congress]] |access-date=23 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111211052439/http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/uploads/materials/e334cdbf9d816489a47b2e08e09ff5a11d12cdee.pdf |archive-date=11 December 2011 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all ))</ref> According to the Commercial Slaughter Code of Welfare, updated on 1 October 2018, all religious slaughter in New Zealand requires pre-cut stunning, with the exception of Jewish (kosher) slaughter of poultry.<ref name="NZcode">((Cite web |url=https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1409/direct |title=Commercial Slaughter Code of Welfare |publisher=Minister of Agriculture of New Zealand |date=1 October 2018 |access-date=4 October 2019 |archive-date=4 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190204021425/https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1409/direct |url-status=dead ))</ref>

=== United States ===
((Over-quotation|section|date=June 2018))
((More citations needed section|date=June 2018))
The United States is one of the countries that has legislation for protection of shechita (Jewish) and dhabihah (Muslim) ritual slaughter.
The [[Humane Slaughter Act]] defines ritual slaughter as one of two humane methods of slaughter.<ref>[http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd7usca1901.htm] 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902. Humane methods</ref>

Since 1958 the United States has prohibited the shackling and hoisting of cattle without stunning them first.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

In [[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah]] 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the [[United States Supreme Court]] struck down a ban imposed by the City of [[Hialeah, Florida|Hialeah]], Florida, on [[Santería]] religious animal sacrifices practiced by the Church as contravening the religious freedoms guaranteed by the [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]]. While the City of Hialeah claimed that its ban on ritual slaughter "not for the primary purpose of food consumption" was motivated by concerns for animal welfare and public health, the Supreme Court held that ample evidence showed that it was in fact motivated by animosity to the Santería religion and a desire to suppress it:((citation needed|date=June 2018))

<blockquote>That the ordinances were enacted "'because of,' not merely 'in spite of'", their suppression of Santería religious practice is revealed by the events preceding enactment of the ordinances. The minutes and taped excerpts of the 9 June session, both of which are in the record, evidence significant hostility exhibited by residents, members of the city council, and other city officials toward the Santería religion and its practice of animal sacrifice. The public crowd that attended the 9 June meetings interrupted statements by council members critical of Santería with cheers and the brief comments of Pichardo with taunts. When Councilman Martinez, a supporter of the ordinances, stated that in pre-revolution Cuba "people were put in jail for practicing this religion", the audience applauded. Other statements by members of the city council were in a similar vein. For example, Councilman Martinez, after noting his belief that Santería was outlawed in Cuba, questioned, "if we could not practice this [religion] in our homeland [Cuba], why bring it to this country?" Councilman Cardoso said that Santería devotees at the Church "are in violation of everything this country stands for." Various Hialeah city officials made comparable comments. The chaplain of the Hialeah Police Department told the city council that Santería was a sin, "foolishness", "an abomination to the Lord", and the worship of "demons." He advised the city council that "We need to be helping people and sharing with them the truth that is found in Jesus Christ." He concluded: "I would exhort you . . . not to permit this Church to exist." The city attorney commented that Resolution 87-66 indicated that "This community will not tolerate religious practices which are abhorrent to its citizens...." Similar comments were made by the deputy city attorney. This history discloses the object of the ordinances to target animal sacrifice by Santería worshippers because of its religious motivation.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

In sum, the neutrality inquiry leads to one conclusion: The ordinances had as their object the suppression of religion. The pattern we have recited discloses animosity to Santería adherents and their religious practices; the ordinances by their own terms target this religious exercise; the texts of the ordinances were gerrymandered with care to proscribe religious killings of animals but to exclude almost all secular killings; and the ordinances suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary in order to achieve the legitimate ends asserted in their defense. These ordinances are not neutral, and the court below committed clear error in failing to reach this conclusion((citation needed|date=June 2018))</blockquote>

The Court also found that the city's proffered reasons for its ban simply did not explain or justify it.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

Respondent claims that [the ordinances] advance two interests: protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals. The ordinances are underinclusive for those ends. They fail to prohibit non religious conduct that endangers these interests in a similar or greater degree than Santería sacrifice does. The underinclusion is substantial, not inconsequential. Despite the city's proffered interest in preventing cruelty to animals, the ordinances are drafted with care to forbid few killings but those occasioned by religious sacrifice. Many types of animal deaths or kills for nonreligious reasons are either not prohibited or approved by express provision.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

[[Temple Grandin]], who is both an animal welfare activist and the leading American designer of commercial slaughterhouses, has outlined techniques for humane ritual slaughter.<ref>[http://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html Temple Grandin, "Recommended Ritual Slaughter Practices"]</ref><ref>[http://forward.com/articles/137318/maximizing-animal-welfare-in-kosher-slaughter/ Maximizing animal welfare in kosher slaughter. Temple Grandin]</ref> She considers shackling and hoisting of animals for slaughter to be inhumane, and has developed alternative approaches usable in production plants. Grandin has coordinated this with the [[Committee on Jewish Law and Standards]] of the [[Conservative movement in the United States]], and in 2000 the Committee voted to accept her approach, ruling that "Now that kosher, humane slaughter using upright pens is both possible and widespread, we find shackling and hoisting to be a violation of Jewish laws forbidding cruelty to animals and requiring that we avoid unnecessary dangers to human life. As the CJLS, then, we rule that shackling and hoisting should be stopped."<ref>[http://www.grandin.com/ritual/conservative.jewish.law.html "Shackling and Hoisting", The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement. The Rabbinical Assembly, New York, 2002.]</ref>

In an investigation by [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]], undercover video was obtained of kosher slaughtering practices at a major kosher slaughterhouse run by [[Agriprocessors]] in [[Postville, Iowa|Postville]], Iowa.<ref>[http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors PETA investigation of Agriprocessors, with video]</ref> The methods used there involved clamping the animals into a box which is then inverted for slaughter, followed by partial dismemberment of the animal before it was dead. Those methods have been condemned as unnecessarily cruel by PETA and others, including Grandin and the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, but are endorsed by the [[Orthodox Union]],<ref>[http://www.ou.org/other/5765/shechita2-65.htm "Orthodox Union Statement of Rabbis and Certifying Agencies on Recent Publicity on Kosher Slaughter"] ((webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20041214171347/http://www.ou.org/other/5765/shechita2-65.htm |date=2004-12-14 ))</ref> which supervises the slaughterhouse. An investigation by the [[United States Department of Agriculture|USDA]] resulted in some minor operational changes. A lawsuit under Iowa law is pending. Grandin's comment was "I thought it was the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen. I couldn't believe it. I've been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before. ...
I've seen kosher slaughter really done right, so the problem here is not kosher slaughter. The problem here is a plant that is doing everything wrong they can do wrong".<ref>[http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/experts-Grandin.asp "Statement of Dr. Temple Grandin, Consultant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Meat Institute"]</ref> In 2006 the Orthodox Union, Temple Grandin and Agriprocessors had reportedly resolved their problems.<ref>[http://www.ou.org/news/article/prof_grandin_is_satisfied_with_agriprocessors_slaughter_practices Prof. Grandin is Satisfied With AgriProcessors Slaughter Practices]</ref> In 2008, though, Grandin reported that Agriprocessors had again become "sloppy" in their slaughter operation and was "in the bottom 10%" of slaughterhouses.<ref>((Cite news
 |title       = Slaughter expert calls Agriprocessors 'sloppy'
 |author      = Waddington, Lynda
 |url         = http://iowaindependent.com/5357/slaughter-expert-calls-agriprocessors-sloppy
 |date        = 11 September 2008
 |publisher   = Iowa Independent
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20100207044643/http://iowaindependent.com/5357/slaughter-expert-calls-agriprocessors-sloppy
 |archive-date = 7 February 2010
))</ref>

Agriprocessors faced accusations of mistreatment of cattle, pollution, and a series of alleged violations of labor law. In May 2008, the [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] (ICE) staged a [[Postville Raid|raid]] of the plant, and arrested nearly 400 illegal immigrant workers. Agriprocessors plants stopped operating in October 2008, and the firm filed for bankruptcy on 5 November of the same year. Sholom Rubashkin as the highest ranking day-to-day [[corporate officer]] was charged with federal [[financial crimes|financial fraud]] and sentenced to 27 years in prison in June 2010.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

The Agriprocessors plant was bought at auction in July 2009 by SHF Industries and has resumed production under the new name ''Agri Star''.((citation needed|date=June 2018))

== See also ==
* [[Shechita]], Jewish method of ritual slaughter
* [[Dhabihah]], Islamic method of ritual slaughter
* [[Jhatka]], Hindu and Sikh method of animal slaughter
* [[Animal sacrifice]]
* [[Animal welfare]]
* [[DIALREL]], Dialogue on Religious Slaughter: an EU project

== References ==
((Reflist))

== Further reading ==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20111211052439/http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/uploads/materials/e334cdbf9d816489a47b2e08e09ff5a11d12cdee.pdf RESOLUTION: GB1106-5 World Jewish Congress]
* Pascal Krauthammer ''Das Schächtverbot in der Schweiz: Die Schächtfrage zwischen Tierschutz, Politik und Fremdenfeindlichkeit von Pascal Krauthammer'' Schulthess, Zürich 2000 ( Zürcher Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte, Band 42)  (The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughter in Switzerland. The Ritual Slaughter Issue from the aspects of Animal Protection, Politics and Xenophobia.  Zurich Studies in Legal History, Volume 42)  (Doctoral dissertation in German with an English summary included)
* [http://www.jus.uio.no/ikrs/tjenester/kunnskap/kriminalpolitikk/aktuelt/Tema/jodeforfolgelse/ossselvnaermest_hele.pdf Per Ole Johansen ''Oss selv nærmest. Norge og jødene 1914–1943''. (''Korstoget mot schæchtningen'' pp. 62–68)]((Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes )) ''I'm alright, Jack (Look after Number One) Norway and the Jews 1914–1943 (''The Crusade against Ritual Slaughter'' pp. 62–68)
* ''Legislation protecting shechita'' : ''text of laws and regulations in various countries'' / compiled by Michael L. Munk; Agudath Israel of America. Legislative Commission of Agudath Israel of America, 1976
*Pablo Lerner and Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, ''The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and Freedom of Religion of Minorities, Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 22, no. 1 (2006/2007), pp.&nbsp;1–62.''
* John M. Efron: ''The Most Cruel Cut of All? The Campaign Against Jewish Ritual Slaughter in Fin-de-Siècle Switzerland and Germany''. Abstracts of 3 touching on Switzerland and anti-shehitah legislation.
* Michael F. Metcalf "Regulating slaughter: animal protection and Antisemitism in Scandinavia, 1880–1941" in ''Patterns of Prejudice''; 23 (1989)
* Robin Judd ''Contested Rituals: Circumcision, Kosher Butchering, and Jewish Political Life in Germany, 1843–1933'' Cornell University Press 2007
* Solomon David Sassoon. ''A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and the Jewish Method of Slaughter (Shehita)''. Letchworth Herts. 48pp
* [https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:U7rlQN-LKqoJ:www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/31616/response/85872/attach/6/Part%252009%2520Dissertation..pdf+levinger+vegetarian+shechita&hl=sv&gl=se&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShO9qohEQWYLOs8JJjTWzOsc0r17CYrQFcBrwx9rr8GuZFsA7OPPuFGRbG_axqKKpV-xC4ba4WUEkSFQVxwjl9YkzZ0bKlcFBBuuPKyMr3uT-9a4ikqrEUR6yTD3yfxq5qc6GJY&sig=AHIEtbRYbgPVLZA6jPCmR8J-RwviOaHFyg&pli=1 ''Challenges to Shechita and its Protection by Government and Legislation in Late 20th Century Britain'' Neville Kesselman]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160117154823/http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55366813/community-trial-aberdeen-shechita-case-1893 Kenneth Collins Abstract: ''A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893'']
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20220412010258/http://www.jusmenacu.net/files/ASnildal.pdf Anti-Semitism without Hatred? The Animal Protection Movement and the Semantics of Kosher Slaughter in Norway 1895–1913]
* [http://sciencenordic.com/butchery-law-anti-semitic-roots Science Nordic. ''Butchery law with anti-Semitic roots'']
*[http://issuu.com/florencebergeaud-blackler/docs/public-report_20101012_083548 A comparative report of the public debates on religious slaughter in Germany, UK, France & Norway. DIALREL Encouraging Dialoge in Issues of Religious Slaughter. Comparative report: Lill M Vramo & Taina Bucher National Reports (in appendix) Florence Bergeaud-Blecker (French report) Adrian Evans (UK report) Taina Bucher, Lill M. Vramo & Ellen Esser (German report) Taina Bucher, Laura Terragni & Lill M. Vramo (Norwegian report) 01/03/2009]
*[https://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-42-2011/issue-4/04-Silver.pdf Understanding Freedom of Religion in a Religious Industry :Kosher Slaughter (Shechita) ''Joel Silver'']
*[http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/Vol1No3Articles/Lavi.pdfShai J. Lavy ''Enchanting a Disenchanted Law: On Jewish Ritual and Secular History in 19th Century Germany'']((Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes ))
*[http://www.nuffieldinternational.org/rep_pdf/1293742223Huw_Davies_edited.pdf ''Farm Animal Welfare, a Voyage of Discovery'' Huw Davies] (General background on sheep farming)
* [http://strangeside.com/kosher-slaughter-fight-in-usa/ Account of the US legislation on kosher slaughter in the USA summarized from: Isaac Lewin ''Personalities and Historical Events, Mossad Harav Kook Yerushalayim 1988'']
* [http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT11101929/PDF Hearings (House of Representatives) in connection with the US Humane Slaughter Act, including a statement by Rabbi Isaac Lewin, professor at Yeshiva University, New York, 12 April 1957 (p. 35)]
* [http://www.shechitauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2012_-_shechita_Ethics_JAEE.pdf ''Government Regulations of Shechita (Jewish Religious Slaughter) in the Twenty-First Century: Are they Ethical?'' Ari Z. Zivotofsky]	
* David Fraser ''Anti-Shechita Prosecutions in the Anglo-American World, 1855-1913: "A major attack on Jewish freedoms"''(North American Jewish Studies)

==External links==
*((Cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php |title=Legal Restrictions on Religious Slaughter in Europe |publisher=Library of Congress |date=September 2019 |website=www.loc.gov |access-date=2019-12-22))
*[https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wjc-analysis-the-assault-on-shechita-and-the-future-of-jews-in-europe The assault on shechita and the future of Jews in Europe. World Jewish Congress]

((Animal rights))

((DEFAULTSORT:Legal Aspects Of Ritual Slaughter))
<!-- categories -->
[[Category:Ritual slaughter]]
[[Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving France]]
[[Category:Food law]]
[[Category:Traditional meat processing]]
[[Category:Kosher meat]]
[[Category:Halal meat]]
[[Category:Judaism-related controversies]]
[[Category:Animals in the Bible]]
[[Category:Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights]]
[[Category:Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights]]
[[Category:Cruelty to animals]]
[[Category:Animal rights]]
[[Category:Animal welfare and rights legislation]]
[[Category:Islam-related controversies]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Legal aspects of ritual slaughter (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Animal rights (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Better source needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:CO2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Category link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cbignore (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Cl (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Clarify (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:En dash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Endflatlist (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fiqh (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix-span (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Flatlist (view source) (protected)
Template:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Free (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Further (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Greater color contrast ratio (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Included (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Legend (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Legend/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Longlink (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:More citations needed section (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ndash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:No (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Over-quotation (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Partial (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Quote box (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Quote box/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/superscript (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/where (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Religious freedom (edit)
Template:Rp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Small (view source) (protected)
Template:Smaller (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Startflatlist (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Subinfobox bodystyle (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Subsidebar bodystyle (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use British English (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use dmy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Verification needed (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Verify source (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:When (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Color contrast (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Color contrast/colors (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:DecodeEncode (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/ISO 639 synonyms (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana languages (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana regions (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana suppressed scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana variants (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:List (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Plain text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Unicode data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Legal aspects of ritual slaughter.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter"