User talk:RPSM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, RPSM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Shirahadasha 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter
Greetings RPSM. How are you? I've notice your various posts on Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter, which I'd like to discuss with you. Perhaps you're new to Wikipedia and getting a sense of how things tend to work around here? From your posts, you sound like you are quite well informed and interested in contributing. Maybe you could take a look at the guidelines on how we use Talk pages for articles? Talk pages are primarily used to discuss questions about how to edit the article, editing disputes, choices about sources and wording, and the like. However, it seems like you've been posting on the Talk page a fair amount of information, raw data, or analysis about the topic, and the like. Do you know what I mean? This kind of material isn't so appropriate for the article's Talk page. To be sure, there is a way you can store information & analysis that might eventually be incorporated into the article. You're allowed to set up and work with a "User page." Since you're new here, if you don't mind, how about if I set up a User page for you, in which you can move some of your posted information over at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter? I'm hoping you'd find this helpful and make it easier for you to collaborate with other editors on the article. Ok? Best wishes with your efforts here. Take care, HG | Talk 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I forgot to mention a stylistic matter that will make things easier for us. When you post on a Talk page, try to keep your comments condenses. Avoid double spacing or bullet points, try to write in concise paragraphs. Otherwise, the Talk page gets filled up and it's hard for other editors to follow the discussion threads. Make sense? Thanks, HG | Talk 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Here is the user page for you, with some of your posts copied in: User:RPSM/workshop/ritual slaughter. If you are satisfied with the posts on the user page, you may want to go back to the article Talk page and delete the versions there.
Regarding your email correspondence -- please read WP:OR and associated pages, as need be. Wikipedia does not rely on individual editors doing research. Instead, we are a "tertiary" source based mainly on secondary sources. (See also: WP:RS.) So you are welcome to hold onto the emails for your information, but when editing (or suggesting edits) for the article, you'll need to come up with reliable (primary or) secondary sources, e.g. Finnish law or reports about the law. Good luck, HG | Talk 18:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ritual slaughter
[edit] need to get the "origin" of the bans right.
The initial ban on kosher slaughter in modern Europe originated in the late 19th century in 1897 in Switzerland. Later bans were enacted in Bavaria in 1930, in Norway, Germany and Sweden in the mid-1930s. [citation needed]
This is bad - it is copied from the article Bans on ritual slaughter, now Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Dates are wrong, and lumping countries together in categories results in inaccuracies and wrong impressions.
Where bans originated? they were part of a debate in Some parts of Germany and Switzerland, connected with the unification of the German State, with the introduction and development of stunning techniques, - the first ban was in the Canton of Aragon (Aargau) where a dispensation for Jews was granted with the stunning provision in 1855 and withdrawn ten years later. From an analysis of the Swiss federal referendum, it could be seen that Protestant cantons supported the ban: Catholic cantons were against. The schäcten technique was not only used by Jews, as some thought the meat was better and more hygienic with this technique. Neither was there solid opposition. The situation was complex involving many strands, anti-Semitism being only one. See: http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf
[edit] Your note
I suggest that you go ahead and add a summary of this content yourself, citing the sources you've uncovered. If you don't know proper formatting others can clean up etc. for you. I also suggest not deleting what others have written pending the resolution of the discussion, if you don't do any deletes others will have less reason to revert what you've done. It's much more likely that others will respond if you go ahead and add to the article than if you simply make suggestions on the talk page. See WP:BOLD. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a proposal for legislation in the Swedish Riksdag on 3 October 2005.
Förbudet mot slakt enligt koscher- och halal-regler är ett hinder för människor som vill leva i enlighet med sin tro. Andra länder har klarat att förena religionsfrihet med djurskydd. Det är dags att Sverige ändrar sin lag från 1930-talet om förbud mot judiska och muslimska slaktmetoder, säger jag i en riksdagsmotion.
The ban on slaughter according to kosher and halal regulations is an obstacle for individuals who wish to live according to their religion. Other countries have managed to combine the Freedom of Religion with Animal Welfare. It is time that Sweden changes its law from the 1930s banning Jewish and Muslim slaughter, I said in a motion to the Swedish Riksdag.
Religiös slakt av Martin Andreasson (fp) Religious slaughter by Martin Andreasson (fp)
Förslag till riksdagsbeslut Proposition for legislation.
Riksdagen tillkännager för sin mening vad i motionen anförs om möjligheten till religiös slakt i Sverige.That the riksdag accepts what is proposed in the motion regarding the enacting of legislation to permit religious slaughter in Sweden.
Motivering Motivation
Den svenska djurskyddslagstiftningen innehåller ett generellt förbud mot att slakta djur utan föregående bedövning. I 14 § anges djurskyddslagen att husdjur ska vara bedövat när blodet tappas av och att andra åtgärder vid slakten inte får vidtas innan djuret är dött. Detta innebär att vissa religiösa slaktmetoder inte är tillåtna i Sverige.
The Swedish Legislation for the Protection of Animals contains a general ban on slaughtering animals without previous stunning. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Protection of Animals Act, is the requirement that domestic animals must be stunned before blood letting occurs and that other precautions at slaughter may not be initiated before the animal is dead. What this means is that certain religious slaughtering methods are banned in Sweden.
När det i denna motion talas om religiös slakt avses så kallad skäktning, det vill säga att djuret slaktas genom att en rakbladsvass kniv förs i ett obrutet drag genom matstrupen, luftstrupen och halspulsådrorna. Denna slaktmetod ingår i både de judiska föreskrifterna om koscher och de muslimska föreskrifterna om halal. Avgörande i båda religionerna är att djuret inte stressas under slakten och känner så lite smärta som möjligt.
When, in this motion, religious slaughter is referred to, what is meant also includes so called schächten i.e. that a razor sharp knife is wielded in an uninterrupted stroke across the trachea, the bronchus and the oesophagus and the carotid arteries. This method of slaughter is part of the precepts of Jewish kashruth and Muslim halal. What is crucial in both religions is that the animal is not stressed during slaughter and that as little pain as possible is felt.
År 1937 förbjöds skäktning i Sverige. Även om frågan gjordes till ett renodlat djurskyddsärende som behandlades inom ramen för slaktlagen kan man diskutera om detta var det enda motivet för reformen. Detta visas bland annat genom vad departementschefen anförde i propositionen (1937:188, min kursivering): ”Oavsett hur det förhåller sig med graden av lidande som vid skäktningen tillfogas djuret, föreligger även andra omständigheter som tala för ett skäktningsförbud. Man kan således inte bortse från att skäktningen gör ett mera motbjudande och råare intryck på åskådaren än bedövningsslakten. […] Vidare måste beaktas, att det otvivelaktigt för stora delar av vårt folk framstår såsom stötande att en sådan slakt är lagligen tillåten […].”
In 1937 schächten was banned in Sweden. Even though the case was made out as being purely a matter of Animal Welfare which was being dealt with within the framework of the Slaughter Act, it is debatable whether this was the only motive for the reform. This can be demonstrated by a number of things, one of them being the the text of a proposal (for legislation) by the Head of the Department (1937:188, ) "Whatever may be the case regarding the degree of suffering inflicted on the animal, circumstances speak out for schächten ban. Thus one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that schächten makes a more disgusting and brutal impression on the observer than slaughter with anesthetisation. (...) Furthermore regard must be paid to the fact that without doubt, for large sections of our population, it seems offensive that this type of slaughtering method is permitted by law.(...)
Med andra ord fanns det inte bara djurskyddshänsyn bakom förbudet utan också en vilja att ta avstånd från judarnas traditionella religiösa slaktmetod. Att förbudet infördes vid denna tid bör ses i ljuset av den internationella utvecklingen. Schweiz förbjöd skäktning redan 1893, Norge följde efter 1930, Tyskland i och med nazisternas maktövertagande 1933 och Sverige alltså 1937. I alla områden som var underkuvade av nazisterna under andra världskriget var skäktning förbjuden. Förbudet hävdes efter krigsslutet i alla länder utom Norge, Schweiz och Sverige. Även Island har i dag ett generellt förbud mot skäktning.
In other words it was not purely regard for Animal Protection that lay behind the ban, but also a wish to have nothing to do with the traditional Jewish method of slaughtering. The fact that the ban was introduced at this time in particular ought to be viewed in the light of developments on the international scene at the time. In Switzerland schächten had been banned since 1893, Norway followed suit in 1930, as did Germany with the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 and then Sweden in 1937. In all the areas which were conquered by the Nazis during the Second World War schächten was banned. The ban was lifted at the end of the war in every single country except Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. Today, Iceland also has a general ban on schächten.
Den svenska hållningen till religiös slakt präglas av dubbelmoral. Utgångspunkten för all lagstiftning borde vara att den bygger på principer som är generella och skulle kunna förverkligas i alla länder. Den svenska linjen förutsätter däremot att andra länder inte följer vårt exempel.
The Swedish attitude to religious slaughter is hypocritical. The starting point for any legislation should be that it is based on principles that are universal, and that can be brought into effect in each country. The Swedish line is, however, that other countries should not follow our example.
Å ena sidan har vi totalförbud mot religiös slakt, å andra sidan accepterar vi att enskilda människor löser detta dilemma genom att importera kött från djur slaktade enligt kosher- och halalföreskrifter i andra länder. Den som håller kosher eller strikt håller sig till halalföreskrifterna kan rentav i särskilda fall serveras sådan kost inom offentlig verksamhet, t.ex. under värnpliktstjänstgöring.
On the one hand we have a total ban on religious slaughter, and on the other hand we accept that individuals solve this dilemma by importing meat from animals slaughtered according to kosher and halal provisions in other countries. Those who keep kosher or strictly follow the halal precepts can, quite simply, in certain cases, be served this food under government operations e.g. when doing military service.
I EU:s slaktdirektiv är grundprincipen att djur skall bedövas före avblodning. Där ges dock möjlighet att slakta djur genom avblodning utan föregående bedövning i samband med religiösa ceremonier, en möjlighet som Sverige alltså inte tillämpar. Även länder som tillåter religiös slakt har vanligtvis olika regler för att säkerställa djurskyddshänsyn, till exempel krav på bedövning omedelbart efter snittläggning, närvaro av veterinär och fixering av djuret.
In the EU directive regarding slaugher the basic principle is that animals must be stunned before blood letting. However, there is a provision that permits animals to be slaughtered without prior stunning in connexion with religious ceremonies, [this should read religious rites - translator's note] an exception that Sweden does not allow. Even countries that permit religious slaughter usually have various rules and regulations to guarantee Animal Welfare, for example, requirements that the animal is stunned immediately after the cut is made, the presence of a vetenarian and the stabilization of the animal.
Djurskyddsmyndigheten redovisade i april 2005 en rapport där man på nytt utvärderar olika frågor kring religiös slakt. Bland annat görs en översikt av lagstiftningen i olika länder. Särskilt intresse ägnas Nya Zeeland, där det förekommer reversibel elektrisk bedövning av nötkreatur i samband med halalslakt. Djurskyddsmyndighetens slutsats är att hanteringen av djuren i samband med elektrisk bedövning kan göras på ett djurskyddsmässigt acceptabelt sätt, under förutsättning att djuren hanteras lugnt och fixeringsboxen är väl utformad, så att djuren är fixerade under en mycket kort tid. Bedövningseffekten vid elektrisk bedövning av den aktuella typen är dokumenterat god.
In April 2005, the Animal Protection Authority presented a report where once again various questions regarding religious slaughter were evaluated. One of these was a summary of the legislation that applies in various countries. Special attenton was paid to New Zealand, where they use reversible electric stunning of bovines in connexion with halal slaughter. The conclusion of the Animal Protection Authority was that the handling of the animal in connexion with electric stunning can be carried out in a way that is acceptable from the Animal Welfare point of view, provided that the animal is handled in a calm manner, that the stabilization box is well designed, so that the animal is held for only a brief period. The stunning effect of the electical stunning used has been documented as effective and satisfactory.
Även om själva bedövningsmetoden bedöms vara effektiv och tillförlitlig pekar dock Djurskyddsmyndigheten på att den ändå inte kan införas i Sverige, eftersom svensk lag och EU:s slaktdirektiv inte tillåter de metoder som slakten förutsätter. Bland annat gäller detta användningen av immobilisering (elektrisk stimulering i syfte att hämma muskelryckningar i slaktkroppen), som strider mot svenska regler om att inga andra åtgärder (utöver avblodning) får vidtas med slaktkroppen förrän djuret är dött.
Even if the actual stunning method has been evaluated as being effective and reliable, the Animal Protection Agency points out that that it cannot be introduced into Sweden, because Swedish Law and the EUs Slaughter Directive do not permit the methods this type of slaughter requires. One of these is this use of immobilization (electrical stimuli to inhibit muscle convulsions in the slaughtered cadaver), which breaches Swedish regulations which say that no other precautions (apart from blood letting) may be taken before the animal is dead.
Djurskyddshänsynen måste alltid väga tungt. Det gäller också vid religiös slakt. Samtidigt är det ett faktum att den svenska lagstiftningen har utformats helt utan hänsyn till de särskilda aspekter som olika religioner anlägger på slaktmetoder. En skenbart neutral lagstiftning blir i praktiken ett hinder för människor att kunna leva i enlighet med sin tro.
Regard for Animal Welfare must always be a priority. And this is even the case with religious slaughter. At the same time it is a fact that the Swedish legislation has been drafted without any concern for the particular aspects that various religions require when slaughtering. What seems on the surface to be a impartial legislation, constitutes in practice an obstacle for individuals to be able to live according to their faith.
Den svenska lagstiftningen måste alltså förändras, eftersom den inte är någon hållbar lösning på avvägningen mellan djurskyddshänsyn och religionsfrihet. Inte minst mot bakgrund av de möjligheter som Djurskyddsmyndigheten pekar på bör arbetet fortsätta med att skapa ett regelverk som ger möjlighet till religiös slakt och samtidigt skapar tillräckliga garantier för djurskyddshänsyn. Det får ankomma på regeringen att avgöra närmare åtgärder.
The Swedish legislation needs to be changed, because it is not a valid solution when balancing Animal Welfare against the Freedom of Religion. Not least with regard to the background material regarding the various options that the Animal Protection Authority has presented, work needs to continue to create a legal framework that will permit religious slaughter, and, at the same time, create sufficient guarantees to ensure Animal Welfare. It would be the government's task to determine what these specific precautions might be.
Stockholm den 3 oktober 2005
Martin Andreasson (fp)
Stockholm den 3 October 2005
Martin Andreasson (Folkpartiet Liberal Party)
RPSM 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
