Defending the Religious Slaughter of Animals: A Study in Ethnic Issue-Management
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1985.tb00102.x |
| Date | 01 April 1985 |
| Published date | 01 April 1985 |
| Author | Roger Charlton,Ronald Kaye |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Roger CharZton
and
Ronald Kaye
ROGER
CHARLTOlJ
AFJD
RONALD
WYE
On four separate occasions since legislation made compulsory the pre-
stunning of food animals before slaughter, the Jewish community has successfully
resisted moves in Parliament to remove racial and religious exemptions from
this requirement. Since these exemptions cover Muslim as well as Jewish
practices in the field of what has come to be called
-
adopting the humane
societies' preferred term
-
'ritual slaughter',
it
is politically significant
that
it
is the Jewish community which has consistently been the principal
defender of re1 igious slaughter in Westminster and Whitehall
.'
The purpose of
this paper
is
primarily to begin to illuminate the nature of this Jewish model
of ethnic issue and threat-management. Muslim reactions to these threats to
communally significant beliefs have taken the form of
----
ad hoc, local responses
rather than nationally-focussed activism. On balance, Muslim groups have also
tended, at least until very recently, to seek compromise and accommodation
rather than confrontation over this issue. Consequently, two very different
types and styles of ethnic pressure group activity (and inactivity) can be
perceived and examined in the context of recent and forthcoming attempts to
place this issue on the national political agenda.
Developments
to
1970
Serious parliamentary legislative activity relating to the issue of
re1 igious slaughter dates from 1927 when the
-
Slaughter
--
of Animals (Scotland)
_.I
Bill
was introduced. The Board of Deputies of British Jews
-
the national
representative body
for
the Jewish community, founded in 1760
-
successfully
pressed for the continuation of their right to practice Shechita under the
Scottish
Bill.
One other ethno-religious group was also specifically exempted
from this legislation, 'Mohammedans', on the basis
of
a need
to
make provisions
for 'Lascar' seamen in Scottish ports. The passage of a Scottish Act in 1928
was followed, in
1933,
by the
UK
Slaughter of Animals Act which, in turn,
continued to exempt these two communities from a requirement to pre-stun animals
before slaughter.
Controversy over the question of religious slaughter reappeared on the
British political agenda almost immediately after the end of the Second World
War. Ever watchful, the Board of Deputies recorded a rising number of press
attacks on religious slaughter, and a specific 'Shechita' committee
-
discontinued since 1940
-
was reconstituted in
1947
to monitor developments.
(Eoard of Deputies, Annual Reports,
1946
and
1947)
By early
1948,
the CJA and
HSA
(Council of Justice to AnimglT, and Humane Slaughter Association)
-
the then
most
active of the animal humane societies in this issue-area
-
considered
that the time was ripe to remove the two ethno-religious exemptions.
However,
it
was
not until
1955-56
-
in the context of
a
major
parliamentary confrontation between, on the one hand, the humane societies
working together under the banner of 'ritual slaughter without pre-stunning
must
go
.
.
.I
(RSPCA, Animal World, April
19551,
and,
on
the other hand, the
Jewish community
-
that the Board of Deputies
was
forced to develop
a
par1 iamentary defensive strategy.
front and intensive lobbying of
FIPs
both by Jewish constituents and Jewish
MPs
as
well as by sympathetic organisations such as the Council of Christians and
Jews. The outcome was the 178-132 defeat of Robert Crouch's
Pill,
introduced
in December
1956,
which he had personally claimed
as
intended to 'undermine
This strategy was based on
a
communal united
.the whole basis of Shechita'. (Jewish
..-
Chronicle,
17
December 1954) Significantly,
by the time this
Bill
came to a vote the government, in the form of
a
Junior
To continue reading
Request your trial