Canadian Court Enjoins Enforcement of Guidelines That Adversely Impact Kosher Slaughtering

 In Jewish Community Council of Montreal v. Canada (Attorney General), (CA Fed. Ct., July 24, 2024), a judge of the Canadian Federal Court issued an interlocutory injunction preventing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency from enforcing Guidelines that require kosher slaughterers that do not stun animals before slaughter to test three indicators of unconsciousness before suspending an animal. Jewish organizations that are plaintiffs in the case say that imposition of the new Guidelines has reduced the volume of kosher beef produced in Canada by 55% and the volume of kosher veal by 90%. The court said in part:

The issue is therefore whether the Guidelines requiring the application of the three indicators of unconsciousness to ensure that an animal is unconscious before suspension, as required under section 143 of the SFCR, are reasonable when applied to shechita, or whether they represent an encroachment on the Applicants’ right to freedom of religion under subsection 2(a) of the Charter, or whether the requirement is discriminatory under section 15 of the Charter....

The Applicants submit that the Guidelines constitute a major departure from prior practice and are unduly protective as they essentially require that the animal be brain-dead before being suspended, when section 143 of the SFCR only requires that the animal be unconscious.... The Guidelines therefore require an unreasonable application of the precautionary principle which does not measurably add to animal welfare (as required under sections 141 to 144 of the SFCR) while slowing down the operation of kosher slaughter to the point where licence holders prefer to cease production. As a result, the Guidelines restrict access to kosher meat and prevent Canadian Jews from exercising the requirements of their faith.

The Guidelines are also discriminatory as they unfairly associate a religious practice of shechita to animal pain, and impose a challenge that does not apply to non-kosher meat production. The Guidelines therefore impose on Jews a burden and deny them benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating a disadvantage. Their Charter rights to freedom of religion and the right to equality enshrined in the Charter are therefore unjustifiably restricted....

For the perspective of shochetim and bodkim, they are deprived of their ability to practise their faith and profession, as they can no longer exercise their duties as religious leaders in the community. As shochetim and bodkim represent a precious resource for the Canadian Jewish community, the loss of their expertise will encroach on the Canadian Jewish community’s culture and collective aspect of religious beliefs. The interference is therefore substantial, both from an individual and collective point of view....

Hamodia reports on the decision. 

Romania Passes Legislation Protecting Kosher Slaughter

Israel National News reports that on Tuesday the Parliament in Romania gave final passage to a law that explicitly allows kosher slaughter of animals. As explained by Jewish News Syndicate:

The move comes after some other European Union members have banned shechita in recent years, including Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Slovenia, and Belgium (except for in Brussels).

European Commission Holding Conference on Halal and Kosher Slaughter

Jerusalem Post reports that today in Brussels, the European Commission, in partnership with the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the U.N. Commissioner for Equality, will hold a conference on "Freedom of religion with regard to religious slaughter." According to the European Commission:

The conference will bring together representatives of the European Union (EU) Member States and other national authorities, special envoys and coordinators on combating antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, representatives of national Jewish, Muslim and other religious communities, international organizations and independent experts.

Belgian Regional Parliament Votes Down Ban On Kosher and Halal Slaughter

JTA reports that in the only portion of Belgium where kosher and halal slaughter is still legal, an attempt to ban those forms of slaughter (i.e. slaughter without first stunning the animal) failed:

The vote Friday in the parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region ... was on whether to scrap a bill proposing a ban. The bill, submitted by liberal and environmentally-centered parties, had been voted down in a committee that kicked it back to parliament.

Out of the 89 lawmakers in the region’s parliament, 42 voted in favor of scrapping, 38 voted against scrapping, eight abstained and one was not present, preserving for now the legality of kosher and halal slaughter in Brussels....

Greek Top Court Bans Kosher and Halal Slaughter

Last week, Greece's highest administrative court-- the Hellenic Council of State-- in a ruling essentially banned kosher and Halal slaughter of animals in Greece. As reported by Israel Hayom:

The ruling saw the court revoke the standing slaughter permit, which was provided through a ministerial decision that exempted ritual Jewish and Muslim slaughter practices from the general requirement to stun animals prior to killing them.

The ruling further called on Greek lawmakers to devise a way to meet the demands of animal rights advocates and the needs of Jews and Muslims who follow the laws about food in their traditions.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The reason the court gave for the law being balanced is that it allows for “reversible stunning.”

The court said the law limits one specific aspect of the ritual act of slaughter, not the act of slaughter itself; as such, it does not count as interference with religious practice.

European Court Upholds Flemish Restrictions on Halal and Kosher Slaughter

In a case referred to it by Belgium's Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v. Vlaamse Regering, (CJEU Grand Chamber, Dec. 17, 2020), upheld a decree of the Flemish government requiring kosher and halal slaughter in the country to use a reversible stunning technique that is inconsistent with Jewish and Muslim religious requirements.  The Flemish government contended:

Electronarcosis is a reversible (non-lethal) method of stunning in which the animal, if it has not had its throat cut in the meantime, regains consciousness after a short period and does not feel any negative effects of stunning. If the animal’s throat is cut immediately after stunning, its death will be purely due to bleeding.... [T]he application of reversible, non-lethal stunning during the practice of ritual slaughter constitutes a proportionate measure which respects the spirit of ritual slaughter in the framework of freedom of religion and takes maximum account of the welfare of the animals concerned.

The European Court said in part:

[T]he Charter is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today ... with the result that regard must be had to changes in values and ideas, both in terms of society and legislation, in the Member States. Animal welfare, as a value to which contemporary democratic societies have attached increasing importance for a number of years, may, in the light of changes in society, be taken into account to a greater extent in the context of ritual slaughter and thus help to justify the proportionality of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings....

... [T]he measures contained in the decree at issue ... allow a fair balance to be struck between the importance attached to animal welfare and the freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion and are, therefore, proportionate.

The Court also issued a press release announcing the decision. Meanwhile, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs harshly criticized the ruling, saying in part:

Beyond the fact that this decision harms the freedom of worship and religion in Europe, a core value of the EU, it also signals to Jewish communities that they are unwanted in Europe. 

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

USCIRF Issues Fact Sheets On Rohingya Refugees and Ritual Slaughter Laws

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has issued two Factsheets of interest this week:

• Factsheet on Rohingya Refugees in Southeast Asia
  
• Factsheet on Ritual Slaughter Laws in Europe

EU Court of Justice Advocate General Says Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Invalid

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion concluding that a decree of Belgium's Flemish region effectively banning kosher and Halal slaughter violates European Union law.  In Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, (Sept. 10, 2020), Belgium's Constitutional Court requested a preliminary ruling on whether the Flemish region can require stunning of animals prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General concluded that the questions referred to the Court of Justice be answered as follows:

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article  26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No  1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 4(1) and 4(4) thereof, and having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not permitted to adopt rules which provide, on the one hand, for a prohibition of the slaughter of animals without stunning that also applies to the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite and, on the other hand, for an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal.

It had been argued that it should be at least permitted to require stunning that is reversible just prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General rejected this claim, saying in part:

There has also been some debate before the Court as to whether the prior reversible stunning which does not lead to the death of an animal or post-cut stunning of vertebrates satisfies the particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites of both the Muslim and Jewish faiths. In that regard, it would seem that there are divergent views on the matter within both faiths. As I pointed out in my Opinion in Case C-243/19 A. v. Veselibas Ministrija, a secular court cannot choose in relation to the matters of religious orthodoxy:

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Belgian Kosher Slaughter Ban Referred To European Court of Justice

As previously reported, in January Belgium's Council of State-- the country's highest court-- heard oral arguments on challenges to laws in Wallonia and Flanders that effectively ban kosher and halal slaughter by requiring animals be stunned before slaughter. Jewish News reported yesterday that the Belgian court has now referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a non-binding opinion on whether the bans are consistent with European Union law.

EU Court of Justice: Halal and Kosher Meat Cannot Be Sold As Organic Without Pre-Slaughter Stunning

In Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, the Court of Justice of the European Union in a Grand Chamber opinion held that under EU regulations, the EU Organic logo cannot be used for animals which have been slaughtered in accordance with Halal or kosher religious rites without first being stunned.  A ruling by the Court of Justice had been requested by French authorities in a case involving a challenge to the marketing of Halal beef products as organic. The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.  The Independent, reporting on the decision, says that 88% of the animals slaughtered as Halal in Britain are stunned before slaughter. Kosher slaughter cannot use pre-slaughter stunning.

Belgium's Top Court Hears Arguments On Kosher/ Halal Slaughter Ban

Hamodia reports on lengthy oral arguments yesterday before Belgium's Council of State-- the country's highest court-- on laws that effectively ban kosher and halal slaughter by requiring animals be stunned before slaughter.  The ban has been enacted in Wallonia and Flanders regions. Separate suits were filed challenging each of the laws. (See prior posting). Jewish and Muslim groups claim that the laws violate Belgium's constitution and the European Union's Charter of Rights. According to Hamodia's report:

During the session, attorneys summarized the arguments submitted in briefs in December 2017, when the case was filed. Key points that Jewish groups have made are that, in addition to the law’s violation of freedom of religion, the law inhibits the professions of shochtim and kosher butchers and discriminates against Jews and Muslims. Briefs also cite fishermen and hunters as examples of groups who kill animals in different ways but are unfettered by the law....

The high court will likely release some response on the case in the coming months, but it might avoid a decision for the time being by referring the matter to the EU’s Court of Justice in Luxemburg. Should they take this route, a final decision could be delayed by more than a year.

NYT Editorializes On Ritual Slaughter Restrictions

The New York Times editorial board today stepped into the debate in some European countries over kosher and halal slaughter, as a law in the Flemish Region of Belgium banning slaughter without first stunning of animals takes effect. (See prior posting.)  The Times says in part:

Right-wing politicians in several countries have used controls on such religious practices to press bigoted agendas under the cloak of battling for civil or animal rights....

The pretexts of some politicians does not mean all those who insist on stunning have dubious motives. Animal-rights activists have long campaigned, justifiably and successfully, for the humane treatment of animals destined for the table. Many earnestly believe that slashing the neck of a conscious animal causes more suffering than stunning the animal first....

But those who really care about the welfare of animals should be wary of making common cause with right-wing nationalists whose hostile intent is to make life more difficult for religious minorities. A real conversation on balancing animal rights and religious freedoms can take place only if it is free of hidden bigotry.

European Court's Advocate General Says Halal and Kosher Meat Can Be Labeled "Organic"

In a September 20 press release, the Court of Justice of the European Union announced the proposed finding of the Advocate General in a reference from France's Administrative Court of Appeal on whether under EU rules halal and kosher meat may be labeled as "organic":

[T]he Advocate General proposes that the Court find that the Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products and the Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing do not prohibit the issue of the European ‘organic farming’ label to products from animals which have been the subject of ritual slaughter without prior stunning carried out in the conditions laid down in the latter regulation.

The Advocate General said, in addition however, that a contrary ruling would not be an interference with freedom of worship. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.] 

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the Advocate General's opinion in  Œuvrestance d’assistance  aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation.

Suit In Belgium Challenges Kosher Slaughter Ban

In Belgium yesterday, three organizations filed suit challenging legislation in the Flemish Region of the country that bans kosher and halal slaughter beginning in 2019. As reported by The Daily Mail, the lawsuit contends that the legislation in Flanders violates the freedom of religion protections found in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution. The Coordinating Council of Islamic Institutions has separately filed suit challenging the law. A suit filed last November challenged a similar law enacted by the Walloon Region. (See prior posting.)

Suit In Belgium Challenges Wallonia's Ban On Kosher Slaughter

In Belgium yesterday, the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations of Belgium (CCOJB) filed suit in the country's Constitutional Court challenging a law passed in May by the parliament of the Walloon Region that effectively bans kosher and halal slaughter.  A similar lawsuit is likely to be filed early next year challenging a similar law passed in July by the parliament of Flanders-- where half of Belgium's Jews live and where many kosher slaughtering facilities are located.  Reporting on the lawsuit, European Jewish Press quote the president of CCOJB who said:

Irrespective of its justification, a ban on kosher meat production sends a message to Belgian Jews that they can choose between living in Belgium and practicing their religion, but they cannot do both. It sends a clear message to Belgium’s Jewish and Muslim communities that they are not welcome here. This is a violation of Belgian constitutional principles,  EU law, and the freedom of religion enshrined as a fundamental right - we will challenge it as such, in Wallonia and in Flanders.”

While the law was pending, a regional court had questioned its constitutionality. (See prior posting.)

Belgian Court Rules Kosher Slaughter Is Protected Religious Right

Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a court in Belgium has ruled that restricting kosher slaughtering of animals "excessively and unreasonably restricts freedom of religion and seriously harms the fundamental laws of human rights and religious rights in Belgium."  The Conference of European Rabbis announced yesterday that the constitutional court of Belgium’s southern Wallonia region handed down the ruling after several legislators in the parliament of Wallonia introduced legislation to subject kosher slaughtering to the general requirement of Belgian law that animals be stunned before slaughter. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Belgian Council of State Says Proposed Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Unconstitutional

JTA reported yesterday that in Belgium, the Council of State has issued an advisory opinion that proposed legislation to ban ritual slaughter would be overturned by the country's constitutional court as a violation of religious freedom.  The bill to end halal and kosher techniques in which animals are not stunned before slaughter was filed last month by the Green Party of the Flemish Region and is strongly supported by animal welfare minister, Ben Weyts of the New Flemish Alliance. It is largely a reaction to a legal fight by Muslim leaders in the Flemish region seeking to overturn the region's ban on the mobile temporary slaughtering areas that have been set up in previous years ahead of Eid al-Adha (the Festival of the Sacrifice). (Background.)

Lawsuit Against Hebrew National Dismissed In State Court With No Appeal Filed

American Jewish World reported yesterday on the end of the long-running lawsuit against ConAgra Foods challenging the adequacy of its standards for kosher slaughter of the beef used in manufacturing Hebrew National hot dogs.  As previously reported, in April the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to state court.  Then, in a little noticed October 6 opinion (reported on at the time by American Jewish World), a Minnesota state court judge dismissed the case, saying that a civil court cannot make a judgement about whether religious standards for kosher slaughter have been met.  He added:

At bottom, the ultimate remedy for those who feel they don’t have confidence in the degree of kashrut observed in the production of [Hebrew National] products is not to purchase them.

Now the time for appeal of that dismissal has run with no appeal being filed.

Polish Constitutional Tribunal Rules Ban On Ritual Slaughter Unconstitutional

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, that a ban on kosher and halal slaughter of animals is unconstitutional. JTA reports that the ruling came in a case filed by the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland and other organizations claiming that the ritual slaughter ban that went into effect last year violates the European Convention on Human Rights. As previously reported, in late 2012 the Constitutional Tribunal held that Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter of animals without first stunning them violates Poland's animal protection laws.  That ruling ended a $500 million industry in the country of processing halal and kosher meat for export. Poland's Parliament will now take up a bill drafted by the National Council of Agricultural Chambers that would legalize ritual slaughter. Jerusalem Post reports on the tensions between local Polish Jewish leaders and the Brussels-based European Jewish Association that arose over choice of strategies to fight the ritual slaughter ban.

8th Circuit Sends Suit Against Hebrew National Back To State Court

In Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., (8th Cir., April 4, 2014), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals took an unexpected route in deciding the appeal in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Hebrew National hot dogs.  A Minnesota federal district court had dismissed the suit by consumers who claimed that ConAgra misrepresented that Hebrew National products are made of "100% kosher beef" because ConAgra's standards for kosher slaughter were inadequate. The district court held that this posed a religious question that could not be decided by the civil courts. (See prior posting.)

The 8th Circuit, however, examined more closely the nature of plaintiffs' objections to ConAgra's kosher standards.  One part of the kosher certification process is the examination of the slaughtered cow's lungs. Certain defects in the lungs would render the entire carcass non-kosher. The allegations in the ConAgra lawsuit were that production pressures led to some carcasses that should have been rejected instead being marked as kosher.  The 8th Circuit concluded that even if this were true, no consumer would be able to identify whether the particular hot dogs he or she purchased were improperly certified. It went on:

Without any particularized reason to think the consumers’ own packages of Hebrew National beef actually exhibited the alleged non-kosher defect, the consumers lack Article III standing to sue ConAgra. Accepting the consumers’ various allegations, it remains entirely possible, maybe probable, that the packages of beef they personally purchased and consumed met the “strict” standards advertised by ConAgra..... [I]t is pure speculation to say the particular packages sold to the consumers were tainted by non-kosher beef, while it is quite plausible ConAgra sold the consumers exactly what was promised: a higher quality, kosher meat product. Time and again the Supreme Court has reminded lower courts that speculation and conjecture are not injuries cognizable under Article III.

However, instead of dismissing the case for lack of standing, the 8th Circuit ordered that the district court return it to the Minnesota state court where it originated before it was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.