Denmark bans ritual slaughter, upsetting Jews and Muslims

[MHz]

Good to know, murder of innocent children is no problem for you.

I don't see any solutions coming from you that would solve any of the reasons a woman would want an abortion and I'm pretty sure they are more emotionally involved than you are.
25,000 children die every day from starvation, I don't see any big campaign coming from you to solve that problem, but you sure seem willing to see that number climb higher.
BTW the correct term is 25,000 children MURDERED daily because starvation is a preventable condition.

 

[gerryh]

25,000 children die every day from starvation, I don't see any big campaign coming from you to solve that problem, but you sure seem willing to see that number climb higher.
BTW the correct term is 125,000 children MURDERED daily because starvation is a preventable condition.

You seem to have a problem with your "facts".

 

[MHz]

No I have a proble mwith typing.
That is curable by putting the keyboard in a better position, sorry to say repositioning your mental process is a task best left to God. You may want to bring that up next time you two are chatting.

 

[gerryh]

No I have a proble mwith typing.
That is curable by putting the keyboard in a better position, sorry to say repositioning your mental process is a task best left to God. You may want to bring that up next time you two are chatting.

You may want to get a little bit more direction as to what God's position is on killing his innocent children.

 

[MHz]

Go ahead, God talks to you, educate me on this point.

You motto rule your life at home also or are you just a tard online?

 

[taxslave]

Good to know, murder of innocent children is no problem for you.

Except they are not children until after they are born. That is why there is no law against abortion.

You may want to get a little bit more direction as to what God's position is on killing his innocent children.

God being a myth makes her position irrelevant.

 

[MHz]

When the myth makes her appearance all the children will have their lives fully restored, no parents will be missing, nor brothers and sisters.

 

[gerryh]

When the myth makes her appearance all the children will have their lives fully restored, no parents will be missing, nor brothers and sisters.

That still doesn't justify the killing.

 

[MHz]

That still doesn't justify the killing.

That is a decision that only affects your own conceived babies, you don't get to judge what others do with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[shadowshiv]

Denmark is now the sixth European nation to ban ritual slaughter. Muslims and Jews seem most upset that they weren't in discussion with the government before this ban was announced.

Denmark Just Banned All Kosher And Halal Meats, Leaving Jews And Muslims Outraged | Elite Daily

I fixed the title for you, Tonington.

 

[Blackleaf]

Bet this is off to the EU Courts. Which will overturn the laws.

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

I know that the EU itself has been trying to ban halal. It's one of the few things that the EU has been doing that I agree with.

 

[Nuggler]

So, you support abortion?

Yup, pope-boy. 21st C and all that. You support killing the mother and child ? Quite the fellow you are. Glad you're not in charge of anything.

 

[Blackleaf]

Yup, pope-boy. 21st C and all that.

So the fact that it's the 21st Century means we should kill babies?

Maybe if it was the 21st Century BC, but this is the 21st Century AD and it's time to get with the times and stop the deliberate killing of babies.

 

[DaSleeper]

Good to know, murder of innocent children is no problem for you.

Off topic...:wink:....but I agree with you on this one!

 

[Goober]

It's been the law in Sweden, since 1937. Poland did so last year, and the Constitutional Court threw out an amendment which would have allowed the Jewish and Muslim communities to do so under religious freedoms.

How long a law has been in place is not relevant. It is whether the law will stand up to a charter challenge.
The question to ask is does an animal’s rights to a pain free killing supersede a person’s Religious rights under Article 10 of the EU Charter
National Secular Society - New EU guidelines on religion and belief make plain that no religion is entitled to special rights

EU Charter - JUSTICE commentary
The right to freedom of religion is often afforded greater protection than the right to freedom of expression. In a case involving state seizure of a film found likely to offend the religious beliefs of a majority of people in the region where it was to be shown, the film creator’s right to freedom of expression was restricted in order to protect the religious feelings of believers.[7] This case reflects the strong affirmation of the power, and even the duty, of states to protect the right to freedom of religion.
EU Charter - Art 10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Definition
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
EUROPA - Animal Health & Welfare - Animal Welfare - Slaughter - Legislation

Under Directive 93/119/EEC Member States retain the right to authorise religious slaughter without prestunning in their own territory. The Directive leaves the responsibility for the respect of religious slaughtering rules with the religious authority, but places the responsibility for the enforcement of its general legal requirements directive with the official veterinary authorities. It further requires that animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites shall be spared any avoidable suffering, pain or excitement during all stages of the slaughter process, and that a mechanical form of restraint be used to prevent injury when the animal is killed.
The slaughter of certain game species, principally for meat hygiene purposes, is regulated under Council Directive 92/45/EEC.

 

[WLDB]

That is a decision that only affects your own conceived babies, you don't get to judge what others do with an unwanted pregnancy.

Sure one can. We can judge whatever or whoever we want - it just doesnt count for much usually.

As for the ritual slaughter - banning it is fine by me.

 

[Tonington]

How long a law has been in place is not relevant. It is whether the law will stand up to a charter challenge.

If it were against the EU Charter, then Sweden and the EU would have had to negotiate before Sweden became a member state. And I gave the example of Poland, which overturned the amendment that introduced accommodations for Jews and Muslims. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court in Poland.

I can tell you as someone with regulatory experience in the EU, that the EC does not take animal welfare considerations lightly.

Under Directive 93/119/EEC Member States retain the right to authorise religious slaughter without prestunning in their own territory.

Yes, and as I said already, Poland has already ruled on this. This Directive places the legislation for authorizing-and by extension restriction- in the hands of the EU member countries. We have to abide by EU directives at my place of work whenever we apply for a market authorization in Europe to sell a new vaccine. In almost all cases, we have to follow EU Directives, as well as the requirements of the national legislative bodies of the countries we are applying for market authorization in. This Directive is clearly placing the onus on the member countries with respect to governing religious slaughter.

ETA: Also thanks to whichever mod changed the title for me. Apparently my left pinkie finger is faster than my right index finger. I didn't want to be that picky to ask for a title edit though...

 

[Machjo]

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

I know that the EU itself has been trying to ban halal. It's one of the few things that the EU has been doing that I agree with.

You realise that fruits and vegetables, grains and nuts are all halal too right?

 

[Goober]

If it were against the EU Charter, then Sweden and the EU would have had to negotiate before Sweden became a member state. And I gave the example of Poland, which overturned the amendment that introduced accommodations for Jews and Muslims. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court in Poland.

I can tell you as someone with regulatory experience in the EU, that the EC does not take animal welfare considerations lightly.



Yes, and as I said already, Poland has already ruled on this. This Directive places the legislation for authorizing-and by extension restriction- in the hands of the EU member countries. We have to abide by EU directives at my place of work whenever we apply for a market authorization in Europe to sell a new vaccine. In almost all cases, we have to follow EU Directives, as well as the requirements of the national legislative bodies of the countries we are applying for market authorization in. This Directive is clearly placing the onus on the member countries with respect to governing religious slaughter.

ETA: Also thanks to whichever mod changed the title for me. Apparently my left pinkie finger is faster than my right index finger. I didn't want to be that picky to ask for a title edit though...

My question was has it been taken to the EU Human Rights as a violation of religious freedom.
Does an animals rights trump Religious Rights?
As to a directive, that is all it is- a directive- not part of the EU Charter.
And the EU Charter rules the roost.

No pun intended -
2 separate animals over there-
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm

Convention on Human Rights

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
ARTICLE 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship,
teaching, practice and observance.
2.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others

 

[Tonington]

2.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law

That, says it all right there. The Charter does not trump all law...it's one part of a much larger framework. The other directive allows countries to allow religious exemptions, because the animal welfare directives require stunning before slaughter. There is nothing that says a country must allow ritual slaughter at all, and the Charter clearly outlines that the religious freedoms are not absolute.

I get what you're saying, but I doubt very much that anything will come of it.