The prohibition of ritual slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and freedom of religion of minorities

Journal of Law and Religion

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-62

  Lerner, Pablo ^a   Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai ^b  

^a Ramat Gan School of Law   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990884352     PISSN: 07480814     EISSN: 21633088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0748081400003210     Document Type: Article

References (356)

1. See e.g. J. Bazak, Vandalism and the Prohibition of Wasteful Destruction (Deut. 20:19), 1 Techumin 329, 336 (1980)
2. Ray S. Aviner, Crop Dusting and Cruelty to Animals, 6 Techumin 432 (1985)
3. S. Rosenfeld, Destroying Surplus Live-stock, 11 Techumin 258 (1989)
4. A. Meisels, Scientific Experiments on Animals, 14 Techumin 366 (1994)
5. A. Steinberg, Cruelty to Animals and the Halakhah, 1 Assia 263 (1989).
6. For example Pythagoras who, according to some accounts was opposed to animal sacrifices and was a vegetarian advocate, as was testified to by Plutarch. See Plutarch, Plutarch's Moralia vol. 12, 541 (Harold Chemiss & William L. Helmbold trans., Harv. U. Press 1957)
7. see also James A. Serpell, Attitudes Toward Animals: Pre-Christian Attitudes, in Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare 76, 77 (Marc Bekoffed., Greenwood Press 1998).
8. See Peter Singer, Animal Liberation 188 (2d ed., Pimlico 1995) [hereinafter Singer, Animal Liberation]
9. Zeev Levy & Nadav Levy, Etikah, regashot u-va ale-hayim (Ethics, Emotions and Animals) 25 (Hotsaat ha-sefarim shel Universitat Hefah 2002).
10. It is worthwhile to point out that thinkers like Seneca (who was a strict vegetarian over his youth) and Plutarch showed due concern for animal welfare. See Plutarch, regashot u-va ale-hayim (Ethics, Emotions and Animals), at vol. 12, 541
11. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales vol. 3, 243 (Richard M. Gummere trans., William Heinemann 1953)
12. see also Miriam T. Griffin, Imago Vitae Suae, in Seneca 1, 7 (C.D.N. Costa ed., Rutland & Kegan Paul Ltd. 1974)
13. D.A. Russell, Letters to Lucilius, in Seneca, Imago Vitae Suae
14. Italo Lana, Luicio Anneo Seneca 72 (Loescher 1955).
15. Gen 1:28
16. see also Levy & Levy, Gen, at 57.
17. Gen 1:29–30.
18. Rashi to Gen 1:29–30.
19. Rashi's comment is based on BT (Babylonian Talmud) Sanhedrin 59b. Rashi (1040–1105) is an important Jewish commentator of the Bible and the Talmud. For an English translation of Rashi's commentary to the Pentateuch, see Rashi, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's Commentary vol. 1, 7f (M. Rosenbaum & A.M. Silbermann trans., Shapiro, Vallentine & Co. 1946).
20. Gen 9:3.
21. Rashi to Gen 9:3
22. also based on BT Sanh. 59b. See Rashi, Rashi to Gen, at vol. 1, 37.
23. See J.B. Sermoneta, L'antropologia biblica nella Guida dei Perplessi di Moses Maimonides e il suo capovolgimento nel Trattato teologico-politico di Benedetto Spinoza, in Annali di Storia dell'esegesi’ 7/1, at 80 ff. (1990) (regarding the duties of man to serve God).
24. See S. Many, Animaux, Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplement 603 ff. (Paris 1928)
25. S.J. Sierra, Il rapporto con il mondo animale e l'Ebraismo, in Gli Animali e la Bibbia: i Nostri Minori Fratelli 27 (Piero Stefani ed., Garamond 1994)
26. see also Yitshak Nahman ben Avraham Eshkoli, Tsa ar ba ale hayim (The Prohibition Against Causing Pain to Animals) (Ophakim 2002).
27. It must be noted that the Halakhah does not permit attendance at bull-rings and similar spectacles where animals fight each other. R. Obadia Josef, Responsa Yechave Daath Pt. III, § 66 ff., p. 207 ff. (Jerusalem 1980). This Responsum is presented (in Hebrew) in the Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD
28. see Responsa Yechave Daath.
29. See Levy & Levy, Responsa Yechave Daath, at 33
30. Noah J. Cohen, Tsaar baálei hayim—The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: its Basis, Development and Legislation in Hebrew Literature (Cath. U. Am. Press 1959).
31. Also see Nahum Rakover, The Multi-Language Bibliography of Jewish Law 536–537 (Lib. Jewish L. 1990) (for a bibliography).
32. Exod 20:10
33. see Deut 5:14 (regarding the ownership status of animals as comparable, in several aspects, to that of slaves)
34. see e.g. Levy & Levy, Deut, at 62.
35. Lev 22:28.
36. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed 371 (M. Friedlander trans., Dover Publications 1956) [hereinafter Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed].
37. Deut 22:10. Rashi explains: “It applies to any two different species, and it is also prohibited to tie them together to carry a burden (hitch them to a wagon).”
38. See Rashi, Deut, at vol. 5, 109 ff.
39. Deut 22:6
40. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, Deut, at 370 (explaining this law)
41. see also Elijah Judah Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: Attitudes and Relationships 148 (Ktav Publg. House 1984).
42. G.H. Bousquet, Les animaux et leur traitement selon le Judaisme, le Christianisme et l'Islam, 9 Studia Islamica 31 (1958)
43. Al-Hafiz B.A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint, in Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science 171, 184 (Tom Regan ed., Temple U. Press 1986)
44. Paul Waldau, Religion and Animals: Islam, in Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science, at 291.
45. See Richard D. Ryder, Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism 28 (2d ed., Berg 2000).
46. Charles Wesley Hume, The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion (2d ed., Universities Fedn. Animal Welfare 1957)
47. Andrew Linzey, Religion and Animals: Christianity, in Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion, at 286.
48. See e.g. Mike Radford, Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility 16 (Oxford U. Press 2001).
49. It was also known as Martin's Act. See Radford, Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility, at 39
50. Simon Brooman & Debbie Legge, Law Relating to Animals 141 (Cavendish Publg. 1999).
51. See e.g. Cruelty to Animals Act (Animal Protection), 5754–1994, L.S.I., 1447, p. 56 (1994) (Isr.) (forbidding abuse or cruelty to animals)
52. Protection of Animals Act, 1911, 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 27 (Eng.)
53. Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, 1996, c. 3 (Eng.).
54. See e.g. Cruelty of Animals Act (Experiments), 5754–1994, L.S.I., 1479, p. 298 (1994) (Isr.).
55. Cf Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159 (2000)
56. Animal Protection Act, 1988, SFS 1988:534 (Swed.)
57. Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, c. 14 (Eng.).
58. See e.g. Jordan Curnutt, Animals and the Law: A Sourcebook 290 (ABC-CLEO 2001).
59. Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, 8 & 9 Eliz. 2, c. 43 (Eng.).
60. See e.g. Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) 1973
61. see also Julian Palmer, Animal Law 49 (3d ed., Shaw & Sons 2001)
62. Animal Welfare in Europe: European Legislation and Concerns 45–46 (David B. Wilkins ed., Kluwer L. Intl. 1997).
63. See e.g. Approvazione del regolamento per vigilanza sanitaria delta carni, regio decreto 20 dicembre 1928, n. 3298.
64. T. Ercoli, “La Macellazione,” in Per un Codice degli Anímali: Comment! sulla Normative Vigente 199, 200 (Anna Mannucci & Mariachiara Tallachini eds., Giuffré 2001).
65. Cf. Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights 355 (U. Cal. Press 1983) [hereinafter Regan, The Case for Animal Rights).
66. Singer, Animal Liberation, The Case for Animal Rights. Regarding the question of farm animals
67. see also Peter Singer, Ethics Beyond Species and Beyond Instincts: A Response to Richard Posner, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions 78 (Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum eds., Oxford U. Press 2004)
68. David J. Wolfson & Mariann Sullivan, Foxes in the Hen House, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, id. at 205, 212.
69. See Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, id, at 97 (expressing a similar view).
70. See Council Directive 1999/74/EC, Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens, 1999 O.J. (L. 203) 53 (EC) (concerning battery hens, defining the rules for appropriate living space for each hen, separation between rows, and appropriate flooring). Similarly, with regard to pigs, rules were set out about the requirements of illumination, ventilation, sanitary conditions and abuse of the animals.
71. See Council Directive 1991/630/EEC, Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs, O.J. (L. 340) 33 (EEC)
72. amended by Commission Directive 2001/93/EC, 2001 O.J. (L. 316) 36 (EC)).
73. Radford, O.J., at 264 ff. The Farm Animal Welfare Council in Britain set out these principles in the form of “five freedoms” (on the model of the four freedoms of the Rome Convention 1957): the freedom from hunger and thirst; the freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and the freedom from fear and distress.
74. Animal Welfare in Europe, O.J., at 11.
75. Brooman & Legge, O.J., at 190.
76. See HCJ 9232/91 “Noah” (Israeli Federation of Animal Protection Organizations) v. Atty. Gen., IsrSC 57(6)212 (Aug. 11, 2003) (providing a comparative discourse)
77. see also Animal Welfare in Europe, IsrSC, at 3 ff.
78. Andrew N. Rowan et al., Farm Animal Welfare: The Focus of Animal Protection in the USA in the 21st Century 46 (Tufts Ctr. Animals Pub. Policy 1999).
79. See Radford, Farm Animal Welfare: The Focus of Animal Protection in the USA in the 21st Century, at 272 (explaining the distinction between animal pain and suffering).
80. We chose to omit the discussion about the meaning of the term “religion.” See Wolfgang Schluchter, The Future of Religion, in Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates 249, 249–250 (Jeffrey C. Alexander & Steven Seidman eds., Cambridge U. Press 1990).
81. See Paul Waldau, Religion and Animals, in In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave 69, 77 (Peter Singer ed., Blackwell Publg. 2006).
82. Deut 12:21.
83. Rashi explains “and thou shalt kill… as I have commanded thee”—“We learn from here that the mode of killing is prescribed; they are the laws of slaughtering as they were told to Moses on Sinai.” Rashi, Deut, at vol. 5, 68. Maimonides indeed lists the laws
84. Moses Maimonides, The Book of Precepts Positive Precept # 146 (Robert Young 1849).
85. See I.M. Levinger, Meor le-Masekhet Hulin (Guide to Masechet Chulim), vol. 1, 1 (Yerushalayim 1994).
86. See e.g. Sefer Hahinukh Precept 451.
87. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, Sefer Hahinukh Precept, at 311
88. Schochet, Sefer Hahinukh Precept, at 162.
89. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, Sefer Hahinukh Precept, at 371
90. cf. Ramdan (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy Det. 12:21:
91. For an English version of Nachaminides' work, see Nachamanides, Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy 150 (Rabbi C. Chavel trans., Shilo Publg. House 1976).
92. See Cumutt, Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy, at 180.
93. B. Cottier & S. Aldeeb, Avis sur l'Étourdissement des animaux avant leur abattage, Institut Suisse de droit compará 4 (Lausanne 2001).
94. This is the method known as “reversible electric stunning,” from which the animal could potentially recover. According to Shimrit Golan, in Sweden this method is accepted by the majority of Muslims, although not by orthodox Jews. Shimrit Golan, Current Challenges for Religious Freedom in Europe: The Case of Ritual Slaughter of Animals 22 (Working Paper 47/2005, Hebrew U. Jerusalem, July 2005).
95. W.A. Shadid & P.S. van Koningsveld, Legal Adjustment for Religious Minorities: The Case of Ritual Slaughtering, in Islam in Dutch Society: Current Developments and Future Prospects 2, 13 (W.A.R. Shadid & P.S. van Koningsveld eds., Kok Pharos Publg. H. 1992). It is nevertheless important to point out that if the animal's death is caused by the electrical shock before having been duly slaughtered, the meat is banned for consumption. Sometimes this part of the opinion has been omitted to show a liberal approach of Islam toward ritual slaughtering, an approach that runs counter to the view of all those who want to stick to the religion provisions. Id.
96. See Patrizia Conforti, Religion et Loi: L'Abattage Rituel sans etourdissment restera interdit en Suisse 1, 5, http://www.religioscope.com/info/notes/2002_029_abattage_ch.htm (last modified Mar. 18, 2002, accessed Dec. 31, 2006). See also text accompanying nn. 200 ff, infra, the decision of the German Constitutional Court about the Islamic community in Hessen.
97. See Conforti, Religion et Loi: L'Abattage Rituel sans etourdissment restera interdit en Suisse, at 4 (quoting Urs Peter Müllen “[II] importe peu de savoir si le Talmud ou le Coran interdisent ou non les méthods d'abattage industrielles. Juifs et musulmans estiment que ces méthods sont incompatibles avec la practique de leur religion, et c'est la seule chose dont la loi doit tenir compte.”).
98. See infra Sec. IV.
99. Macellazioni Rituali e Sofferenza Animate 14, 16 (Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica 2003) (available at http://www.governo.it/bioetica/testi/macellazionel90903.pdf). A law of June 20, 1980 permits religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims. Another law from 1927 requires that animals should be killed by a swift and painless method: “usando apparecchi esplodenti a proiettile captivo, oppure la recisione del midollo allungato (enervazione) ovvero altro sistema da riconocersi odoneo dall'autoritá prefettizia, sentito il consiglio provinciale di sanitá.” Id. at 21.
100. The matter was settled by an agreement between the Spanish authorities and the Jewish and Muslim communities in 1992. Decreto Real 53 15–2–1995.
101. Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations, S.I. 1995/731 (U.K.).
102. Slaughtering of Animals (Scotland), 1928, 18 & 19 Geo. 5, c. 29 (Eng.).
103. Tierschutzgesetz (Law for the Protection of Animals) § 4a 2 (2), July 24, 1972, BGB1. 1 (Federal Law Gazette) at 1277 (Ger.). In the state of Saxony, Kosher slaughtering had been banned in 1892 but the law was rescinded in 1910.
104. Cf. Michael L. Munk, Eli Munk & I.M. Levinger, Schechita: Religious and Historical Research on the Jewish Method of Slaughter 17–26 (Inst. Adv. Jewish Scholarship 1976).
105. Law about Animals 1971, § 11, Säädoskokoelma (SDK)/Förfatningssamling (FörfS) 333/1971. There is an exception on the island of Aland, where stunning is compulsory.
106. See Macellazioni Rituali, Law about Animals, at 30.
107. See P. Garde, Die Religionsfreiheit in den Skandinavischen Landern, 47 Zeitschrift fur Evangelisches Kirchenrecht 315, 330 (2002). Danish law requires stunning immediately following the incision. This method may serve as an alternative for the integration between the swift cessation of pain and religious freedom (because perhaps such stunning is not against the Halakhah) and it might well be adopted by other countries.
108. European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter § 17 (1), 1988 O.J. L. (137) 27 (authorizing contractual parties to derogate provisions as to prior stunning in case of slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals).
109. Council Directive 1993/119/EC, Protection of Animals at the Time of Slaughter or Killing, 1993 O.J. (L. 340) 21 (EC)
110. replacing Council Directive 1974/577/EEC, On the Stunning of Animals Before Slaughter, 1974 O.J. (L. 316) 10 (EEC)).
111. See Council Directive 1993/119/EEC § 5(2).
112. See Curnutt, Council Directive 1993/119/EEC, at 169.
113. Cf. Rowan et al., Council Directive 1993/119/EEC, at 59
114. Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Dept. of Food & Agric, 63 Cal. App. 4th 495, 508 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1998).
115. see also Jones v. Butz, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); infra Sec. V(A) (discussing the definition and usage of “humane”).
116. Cf. Farm Sanctuary, Inc., 63 Cal App. 4th at 508.
117. See Radford, Cal App. 4th, at 339.
118. See Garde, Cal App. 4th, at 47
119. Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica, Macellazioni Rituali e Sofferenza Animate. (Documento approvato nella Seduta Plenaria del 19 settembre 2003).
120. See Decreto legislativo 333/1998, 1 settembre 1998 n. 333: “Attuazione della direttiva 93/119/CE relativa alla protezione degli animali durante la macellazione o l'abbattimento,”
121. Animal Welfare Act, Pub. Act No. 8485, § 6(1) (Phil. 1998).
122. See Wolfson & Sullivan, Animal Welfare Act, Pub. Act No. 8485, at 212.
123. K.H. Kastner, Das tierschutzrechtliche Verbot des Schechtens aus der Sichl des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 57 JuristenZeitung 491, 492 (2002).
124. See Schochet, JuristenZeitung, at 283.
125. Dany Rothschild, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung 59 (Buchdruckerei M. Lande 1955)
126. Munk et al., Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 16.
127. See Conforti, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 1.
128. Golan, Current Challenges, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 20
129. Macellazioni rituali, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 25.
130. See Macellazioni rituali, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 11.
131. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for banning ritual slaughtering. See Golan, Das Schdchverbot der Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, at 58.
132. Brian Carnell, UK Proposes Banning of Halal & Kosher Slaughter, http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2003/000246.htlm (June 29, 2003) (accessed Aug. 23, 2006).
133. See Cottier & Aldeeb, UK Proposes Banning of Halal & Kosher Slaughter. This opinion is based on the premise that slaughtering without stunning is not obligatory for Jews or Muslims. The opinion is given on the basis of a particular religious interpretations given by the authors of the opinion and not by religious authorities. This approach reminds us of periods of intolerance when religious interpretations given by the State replaced religious opinions. This was, for example, the way of the Emperor Justinianus (Codex 1.9.8; Novella 146).
134. See Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, Ciustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani v. 2, 814 ff. (Milano 1979).
135. Macellazioni rituali, Ciustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, at 7.
136. But see Ciustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani.
137. Cf. Brian Barry, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturism 303 (Harv. U. Press 2001) [hereinafter Barry, Culture and Equality].
138. See e.g. Barry, Culture and Equality, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturism, at 44.
139. For religious freedom and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, see Malcolm D. Evans, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe 281 (Cambridge U. Press 1997)
140. Carolyn Evans, Freedom of Religion Under the European Convention 67 (Oxford U. Press 2001)
141. Peter Cumper, The Public Manifestation of Religion or Belief: Challenges for a Multi-Faith Society in the Twenty-first Century, in Law and Religion: Current Legal Issues 2001 vol. 4, 311 (Richard O'Dair & Andrew Lewis eds., Oxford U. Press 2001)
142. see also Alenka Kuhelj, Religious Freedom in European Democracies, 20 Tulane European Civ. L. Forum 1, 2 (2005).
143. See e.g. Fed. Const, of the Swiss Confederation art. 8(2) (Switz. Apr. 18, 1999)
144. Const, of the Italian Republic art. 8(1) (Ital. Dec. 22, 1947)
145. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Const.) art. 4(1) (Ger. Oct. 3, 1990)
146. Const, of Spain art. 16(1) (Spain Dec. 29, 1978).
147. Blackstone ‘s International Human Rights Documents 51 (P. Ghandi ed. 1995).
148. Javier Martinez-Torrón, The European Court of Human Rights and Religion, in Law and Religion: Current Legal Issues 2001, Blackstone ‘s International Human Rights Documents, at 185.
149. See C. Evans, Law and Religion: Current Legal Issues 2001, Blackstone ‘s International Human Rights Documents, at 103
150. see also Cha are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France (GC), no. 27417/95, §§ 59, 74, ECHR 2000-VII (available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/ tkpl97/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en) (enter case name under Case Title on HUDOC search page).
151. Barry, Culture and Equality, ECHR, at 44
152. See Macellazioni riluali, ECHR, at 6.
153. Of course, it is possible to claim that precisely to support the secular character of the French state, it is necessary to prohibit ritual slaughtering. See Christophe Marie, Fondation Brigitte Bardot, Ritual Animal Slaughtering, http://www.fondationbrigittebardot.fr/ site/fbb_a.php?IdPere=199&Id=199 (accessed Oct. 23, 2006). As we have pointed out, we should understand that secularism should leave room for religious tolerance.
154. Cf. Garde, Fondation Brigitte Bardot, Ritual Animal Slaughtering, at 329.
155. René Descartes, Discours de la méthode: suivi de La dioptrique 124 (Frédéric de Buzon ed., Gallimard 1991).
156. Voltaire (1694–1778) answered very harshly to this claim: “Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so it may not feel?” Voltaire, A Reply to Descartes, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations 20, 21 (Tom Regan & Peter Singer eds., Prentice Hall 1989).
157. See e.g. Brooman & Legge, A Reply to Descartes, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations, at 8–9.
158. See Gary L. Francione, Animals: Property or Persons, in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, A Reply to Descartes, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations, at 108, 108–115.
159. Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics 239 (Louis Infield trans., Harper & Row 1963)
160. but see Tom Regan, Defending Animal Rights 12 (U. 111. Press 2001) [hereinafter Regan, Defending Animal Rights] (critizing Decartes' position)
161. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, Defending Animal Rights, at 174.
162. Kant recognizes that man has an indirect obligation not to be cruel to animals. His opinion is vulnerable to criticism on the basis that animals do not exist to fulfill the needs of man but exist by their own right. Levy & Levy, The Case for Animal Rights, Defending Animal Rights, at 42. The Kantian attitude dominates, to a certain extent, the debate on the status of animals. See generally infra Sec. V(B).
163. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation 310 (Oxford U. Press 1970). Bentham recognized that different species merit equal treatment. His opinion about animals is well known:
164. Singer, Animal Liberation, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, at 5 ff.
165. See also Peter Singer, Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement 45 ff. (Rowman & Littlefield 2000) [hereinafter Singer, Ethics into Action]. Singer is a supporter of utilitarianism, but on the basis of equality. Speaking in terms of utilitarianism may be too sweeping because utilitarianism includes various concepts and could be used in different contexts.
166. See Brooman & Legge, Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement, at 91–95 (discussing utilitarianism with regard to animals)
167. Regan, Defending Animal Rights, Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement, at 13 (criticizing utilitarianism in the context of animal rights)
168. see e.g. Bentham, Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement, at 310
169. David Lyons, Utility and Rights, in Readings in the Philosophy of Law 243 (Jules L. Coleman ed., Garland Publg. 1999)
170. Anthony Quinton, Utilitarian Ethics 1–10 (St. Martin's Press 1973)
171. see also Joan Dunayer, Speciesisim (Ryce Publg. 2004)
172. Levy & Levy, Speciesisim, at 172.
173. That is considered discriminating between a human and non-human animals on the ground they belong to different species. Singer, Animal Liberation, Speciesisim, at 213
174. see also Paola Cavalieri, The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights 69 (Catherine Woollard trans., Oxford U. Press 2001).
175. See e.g. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights.
176. It is noteworthy to point out that Rabbi LA. Kook explicitly refers to “the rights of animals,” e.g., in his Talmudic Commentary. Ein Haia, Shabbat, vol. a, 109 (Jerusalem 1994).
177. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, Talmudic Commentary. Ein Haia, Shabbat, at xvii, xxii. His ideas have been harshly criticized.
178. See id. at preface; see also Carl Wellman, The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? 108 (Westview Press 1999).
179. See e.g. Gary L. Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law 12 (Temple U. Press 1995) [hereinafter Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law] (proposing that we should not relate to animals in terms of property).
180. But see David Favre, Equitable Self-Ownership for Animals, 50 Duke L.J. 473, 476 (2000).
181. See e.g. Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom 176 (Oxford U. Press 1988) [hereinafter Raz, The Morality of Freedom].
182. Id. at 179
183. cf. Alan White, Why Animals Cannot Have Rights, in Animal Rights and Hitman Obligations 119, 120–121 (Tom Regan & Peter Singer eds., 2d ed., Prentice Hall 1989).
184. Person A can only claim rights from B if A has the choice to demand a certain conduct from B and is in a position to enforce it. According to this criterion, animals cannot be regarded as having rights because they do not have the choice to implement their rights. Only humans can. This approach does not explain why people with handicaps, who cannot claim their rights are nevertheless regarded as having rights. Cf. L.W. Sumner, The Moral Foundation of Rights 46, 203–204 (Oxford U. Press 1989).
185. See Alan Gewirth, Are there Absolute Rights?, in Theories of Rights 91 (Jeremy Waldron ed., Oxford U. Press 1984).
186. Cf. A. Sohm-Bourgeois, La personification de l'animal: une tentation à repousser, Dalloz Chronique 33–37 (1990).
187. Some theorists try to avoid the problem of comparing humans to animals by using the word “interests” instead of “rights” to describe what animals should be legally entitled to, but this is purely a matter of semantics. See Joel Feinberg, Harm to Others 58, 70 (Oxford U. Press 1984) (concerning animals “interests”).
188. See Margaret Mc Donald, Natural Rights, in Theories of Rights, Harm to Others, at 21
189. Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law passim (Oxford U. Press 1979).
190. Where utilitarianism fails to provide for concern and respect for persons, rights become necessary. See e.g. Ronald Dworkin, Rights as Trumps, in Theories of Rights, Harm to Others, at 153
191. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously xi (Harv. U. Press 1977) [hereinafter Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously]
192. see also Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law, Harm to Others, at 103.
193. The idea of rights as trumps has generated critics. See e.g. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, at 365 (providing a response to Prof. Joseph Raz)
194. see also Jeremy Waldron, Pildes on Dworkin's Theory of Rights, 29 J. Leg. Stud. 301, 303 (2000).
195. Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Harm to Others, at 177
196. see e.g. J.W. Harris, Legal Philosophies 83 (Butterworth & Co. 1997) (providing criticism about the difficulty of defining legal relationships in terms of obligations and rights)
197. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions: As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays 11 ff. (David Campbell & Philip Thomas eds., Ashgate 2001) (concerning the rights-obligations relationship).
198. This argument is based on the view that the issue of cruelty to animals concerns the protection of human feelings, not the enforcement of an ethical norm. See Avinoam Ben-Zèev, The Reason for the Prohibition on Abusing Crocodiles, 4 Mishpat Umimshal 763 (1998) (Hebrew) (arguing that the rationale for prohibiting animal abuse is emotional rather than ethical)
199. Yossi Wolfson, The Moral and Legal Status of Nonhuman Animals, 5 Mishpat Umimshal 551 (2000) (Hebrew) (commenting on Zeev's view).
200. See e.g. Barry, Culture and Equality, Harm to Others, at 131 (suggesting it is easier to accept the idea of tolerance than to come to terms with its interpretation).
201. We can point out the position of Rabbi Ovadia Yoseph who argues that this practice is prohibited according to Jewish law. See Eshkoli, Harm to Others, at 209.
202. See Macellazioni rituali, Harm to Others, at 4.
203. Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship 210 (Oxford U. Press 2001).
204. See e.g. Sally Engle Merry, Changing Rights, Changing Culture, in Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives 31, 38 (Jane K. Cowan, Marie-Benedicte Dembour & Richard A. Wilson eds., Cambridge U. Press 2002).
205. Barry, Culture and Equality, Harm to Others, at 33.
206. See e.g. Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory 196, 264 ff. (2d ed., Palgrave Macmillan 2006) (concerning multiculturalism)
207. Ayelet Shachar, Two Critiques of Multiculturalism, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 253 (2001)
208. Yael Tamir, Two Concepts of Multiculturalism, in Multiculturalism in a Democratic and Jewish State: The Ariel Rozen Zvi Memorial Book 79 (Menachem Mautner, Abraham Sagi & Ronen Shamir eds., Universitat Tel Aviv 1998) (Hebrew).
209. For example, in certain countries, Sikhs riding motorcycles are exempted from wearing crash helmets because they wear turbans. Jacob T. Levy, The Multiculturalism of Fear 125–127 (Oxford U. Press 2000)
210. see also Kymlicka, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 163 (listing various adjustments)
211. Tina S. Boradiansky, Student Author, Conflicting Values: the Religious Killing of Federally Protected Wildlife, 30 Natural Resources J. 709, 727 (1990) (regarding the problems of accomodation in the conflict between defense of wildlife and Indian religious practices).
212. We might also cite the permission for the church to produce wine during Prohibition in the U.S., permission for Jews to work on Sundays though it is a day of rest for non-Jews, etc. Cf J. Levy, id. at 127.
213. See e.g. Jones, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (discussing accommodations of religious practices by granting exemption from statutory obligations).
214. Carl Cohen & Tom Regan, The Animal Rights Debate 3 (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2001).
215. According to Jewish tradition, this practice stems from the times of Noah—after the deluge. See The Multiculturalism of Fear.
216. See Jones, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (holding that there was no fault in the use of kosher meat permitted by U.S. law)
217. see e.g. Pamela D. Frasch et al., Animal Law 403 (Carolina Academic Press 2000) (explaining that, as in other cases, this decision was based on the principle of religious freedom, ignoring the aspect of cruelty to animals).
218. See e.g. A.I. Kook, Telalei Oroth, in Mamar`e Harayah 26 ff. (Jerusalem 5744) (Hebrew) [hereinafter Kook, Telalei Oroth] (essay on vegetarianism).
219. See text accompanying infra nn. 233–235 (discussing the opinion of Rabbi A.I. Kook).
220. See Abraham Isaac Kook, Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, the Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems 316 (Ben Zion Bokser trans., Paulist Press 1978).
221. Barry, Culture and Equality, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 296.
222. See Barry, Culture and Equality, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 35,40.
223. Cf Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 205 (“The institution of rights is therefore crucial because it represents the majority promise to the minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected.”).
224. Barry, Culture and Equality, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 41.
225. See Barry, Culture and Equality, The Multiculturalism of Fear, at 133.
226. The problem here is not the permission for whaling, but the cruel methods used by the aboriginals. See id. at 254.
227. HCJ 9232/91, Noah (Israeli Assn. to Protect Animals) v. Ally. Gen., at IsrSC 57(6)212 (2003) (banning the practice of force-feeding geese).
228. See e.g. European Convention on Human Rights art. 9(1), 14 (distinguishing between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination).
229. Indeed, there are cases in which the freedom of religion is impaired and it is not deemed discrimination, for example, if the prohibition of displaying religious expressions was applied to the entire population. See e.g. Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico art. 3(IV) (Mex. Feb. 5, 1917).
230. E.g. Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Condo. Assn., 878 P.2d. 1275, 1290 (Cal. 1994)
231. Young v. Savinon, 492 A.2d. 385, 389 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1985).
232. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 158–159 (1978).
233. See Golan, U.S., at 14 (arguing that the prohibition in Switzerland had anti-Semite roots).
234. The prohibition began with the emigration of Jews to Switzerland from Czarist Russia. See also Pascal Krauthammer, Das Schächtverbot in der Schweiz, 1854–2000: die Sch¨achfrage zwischen Tierschutz, Politik und Fremdenfeindlichkeit 253 (Schulthess 2000).
235. This is the opinion expressed in the report of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. See Cottier & Aldeeb, U.S., at 11.
236. Zerach Warhaftig, The Historical and Legal Battle over Jewish Shechita, 52 Sinai 195 ff. (5723) (Hebrew) (our citations are from http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hamavak-4.htm)
237. see also B. Nahmani, The Battle against the Jewish Schechita (Hebrew), http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/hamaavak.htm (accessed Feb. 6, 2007)
238. see also Krauthammer, The Battle against the Jewish Schechita, at 153.
239. Warhaftig, The Battle against the Jewish Schechita (passim). This was the case also for my late grandfather, Prof. Alfredo Michael Rabello (A.M.R.).
240. Rabbi B.Z. Uziel, Sefer Mishpete Uziel (Responsa), vol. 1, Yore Deah, ¶ a (Yerushalayim 1997) (Hebrew) (Responsa).
241. This Responsum is presented (in Hebrew) in the Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD; see infra n. 176.
242. Weinberg, Seridei Esh: sheelot utshuvot, Part II # 4, himum habeemot al iede chashmal Prefation, p. 28.
243. See e.g. Paul Valley, Muslims Unite with Jews to Defend Animal Slaughter Rites; Government Told to End Religious Exemption from Animal Welfare, The Independent (London) 3 (June 11, 2003)
244. BBC News World Edition (BBC June 10, 2003) (TV broadcast) (text available at http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm)
245. Aisha Labi, A Stunning Debate: A Proposal to Ban Ritual Slaughter in the U.K. Forges an Unlikely Alliance of Muslims and Jews, http://www.time.eom/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030623–458740,00.html (accessed Jan. 12,2007).
246. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
247. Curnutt, U.S., at 187.
248. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 525.
249. Id. at 526 (“[T]he City Council adopted Resolution 87–66, which noted the ‘concern’ expressed by residents of the city ‘that certain religions may propose to engage in practices which are inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety.’”).
250. Id at 527–528.
251. Incidentally, Justice Scalia commented that even if the ordinances only intended to protect animals, it was illegal. Id. at 559. Indeed, militant defense of animals, even without ulterior motives, could harm minorities.
252. See Golan, Id, at 32.
253. Around 3,500,000 Muslims are living in Germany. See Euro-Islam.info, Country Profiles: Germany, http://www.euro-islam.info/pages/germany.html (accessed Jan. 12, 2007). The number of Jews is around 100,000.
254. Curnutt, Country Profiles: Germany, at 187
255. see David O'Brien, Animal Sacrifice and Religious Freedom: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah 1–22 (U. Press Kan. 2004) (regarding the history and a detailed survey of the background).
256. We have referred before to the leniency we find in certain non-European legislation as to tribal practice. This is the case of Filipino law. See Country Profiles: Germany.
257. Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, The Legal Status of Islam in France, in Islam and European Legal Systems 97, 114 (Silvio Ferrari & Anthony Bradney eds., Ashgate 2000).
258. See Cha are Shalom ve Tsedek, 27417/95 at ¶ 2.
259. Id. at ¶ 35–36.
260. Id. at ¶ 69 (stating that one of the two reasons on which the government based its denial was that Sha'arei Shalom had about 40,000 adherents compared to 700,000 for ACIP).
261. See infra Sec. VI (regarding the issue of imported meat).
262. See T. Jeremy Gunn, Adjudicating Rights of Conscience under the European Convention of Human Rights, in Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives 305–330 (Johan D. van der Vyver & John Witte, Jr. eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1996) (regarding the limitations of the Court of Human Rights to administer problems concerning freedom of religion and conscience).
263. See e.g. Marie-Benedicte Dembour, Following the Movement of a Pendulum: Between Universalism and Relativism, in Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, Adjudicating Rights of Conscience under the European Convention of Human Rights, in Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives, at 74 (discussing the so-called margin of appreciation).
264. BverfG (Federal Constitutional Court), 1 BvR 1783/99 (Jan. 15, 2002); JZ 10/2002, 500
265. see Rico Faller, Staalsziel “Tierschutz”: vom parlamentarischen Gesetzgebungsstaat zum verfassungsgerichtlichen Jurisdiktionsstaat? 88 (Duncker & Humblot 2005)
266. Christine Langenfeld, Germany, 1 Intl. J. Const. L. 141 (2003)
267. Kate M. Nattrass, “… Und die Tiere” Constitutional Protection for Germany's Animals, 10 Animal L. 283, 291 (2004).
268. See Animal L. and accompanying text.
269. See e.g. Gerhard Robbers, The Legal Status of Islam in Germany, in Islam and European Legal Systems, Animal L., at 149.
270. Langenfeld, Animal L., at 144.
271. Cf. Kastner, Animal L., at 495.
272. See Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Const.) art. 20a.
273. Id. at Appendix (available at www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#weimar) (accessed Jan. 12,2007).
274. Cf. Kymlicka, Animal L., at 22.
275. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) (Civil Code) § 90a: “Animals are not things. They are protected by special laws.
276. The provisions dealing with things shall analogously apply to them, insofar as not yet otherwise provided.” See e.g. Rolf Steding, § 90a BGB: nur juristische Begriffskosmetik?—Reflexionen zur Stellung des Tieres im Recht, Jus 962 (1996).
277. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1907
278. Wolfson & Sullivan, U.S.C., at 207
279. see e.g. Animal Welfare in Europe, U.S.C., at 6
280. see also Elizabeth L. Decoux, In the Valley of the Dry Bones: Reuniting the Word “Standing” with its Meaning in Animals Cases, 29 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Policy Rev. 681, 682 (2005).
281. I.M. Levinger, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 12 (Maskil L'David, Jerusalem 1995)
282. (“The terms humane and slaughter represent a paradox. Slaughter cannot be humane by any method, for slaughter is cruel. And yet the slaughter of animals being a necessity, must be performed as humanely as possible.”); Munk et al., Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 107
283. Rowan et al., Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 18
284. see e.g. Abraham Isaac Kook, Hazon ha-tsimhonut veha-shalom: mi-behinah Toranit: orot meha-maamarim Aflkim ba-Negev veTelalei Orot 8 (David Cohen ed., Yerushalayim 1960–61) (Hebrew) [hereinafter Kook, Hazon ha-tsimhonut veha-shalom]: “It cannot be conceived that the merciful Maker of the universe prescribed an eternal rule in His goodly works, which does not enable mankind to exist without uprooting its morals by bloodshed, even the blood of animals.” Id.
285. Said they [in Heaven], “Since he is compassionate, let us be compassionate to him.” See e.g. Kook, Hazon ha-tsimhonut veha-shalom, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 8.
286. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 330.
287. See Rowan et al., Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 10.
288. See Weinberg, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at vol 1
289. R.Z.P. Frank, Beinyan Girushin, hagaalath porcelain, vehimum leschechita Vayita Eshel 5750 # 543 (Hebrew)
290. R. Yosef Razin, Himum Behemah Kodem Schechita, in Atereth Hakahamim 41–46 (Hebrew)
291. R.H. Grodzhinsky, Himum Behemah Leachar Schechita, in Atereth Hakahamim 5697 47–48 [5743] (Hebrew)
292. R.Y.M. Schlesinger, Himum Behemah Lifnei Schechita, in Esh Tamid 5741–5744 [5749] (Hebrew)
293. R.D.Z. Hoffmann, Himum Behemah al yedei Shikrouth, in Hamaayan 34, 5754 9–20 (Hebrew)
294. Eshkoli, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, at 607.
295. The works by Frank, Razin, Grodzhinsky, Schlesinger & Hoffman are quoted in the Bibliography of the Responsa Project of Bar-Ilan University. See Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000.
296. See e.g. I.M. Levinger, Schechita in the Light of the Year 2000: Critical Review of the Scientific Aspects of Methods of Slaughter and Shechita 121–127 (Maskil L'David 1995) [hereinafter Levinger, Schechita in the Light of Year 2000] (discussing in detail the various methods of slaughter)
297. L.S. Shore, The Scientific Approach to Resolving Conflicts between Veterinary Science and Schechita, 54 (1) Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine (1999) (available at http://www.isrvma.org/article/54_l_4.htm).
298. Schochet, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 284.
299. Riccardo Di Segni, Noten ta'am Le-shevah: ta'ame ha-kashrut be-farshanut ha-Yehudit (The Jewish Interpretation of Dietary Laws) 43 (Lamed 1998) (Hebrew)
300. see also Riccardo Di Segni, Macellazione rituale (Shechitah) Allegata 5
301. Macellazioni Rituali, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 59 ff.
302. Hakhamim, Yoré Deà § 1
303. This Responsum is presented (in Hebrew) in the Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD; see Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine. Ha-Levi was born in Yemen, came to Israel in 1923, d. 1973.
304. The prohibition is reiterated by R.M. Roth: “To conclude, it is clear from the halakhic point of view that electric shocks render the animal treifa (unfit to eat) and it is prohibited to use. And observant Jews must not partake in it because it is an abomination.” Responsa Kol Mevaser Part I # 81 s. v. ulam
305. also R.I.J. Weiss (1902–1989), Responsa Minhath Itzhak Part II # 27.
306. (This Responsum is presented (in Hebrew) in Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD; see Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine.):
307. These Responsa are presented (in Hebrew) in the Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD; see Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine.
308. Levinger, Schechita in the Light of the Year 2000, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 20:
309. Id. at 128
310. see also I.M. Levinger, Haschechita veZa'ar Baalei Chaim, especially the addendum at 175 (Jerusalem 2004) (Hebrew).
311. Barry, Culture and Equality, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 42
312. see also id. at 296 (complaining that the British government took into consideration the opinion of Jews and Muslims since “these leaders had an entrenched position based on religious belief and no credentials as scientists.”).
313. See Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), FA WC Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing-Part 1: Red Meat Animals, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farnied/final_response.pdf (accessed Jan. 12, 2007).
314. All forms of exploitation are likely to raise ethical questions. See e.g. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 151.
315. Kook, Telalei Orot, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 26 ff.
316. Kook, Hazon ha-tsimhonut veha-shalom, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine. It should be remembered that the late Rabbi Shlomo Goren, former Chief Rabbi of Israel, was a strict vegetarian.
317. Kook, Telalei Orot, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 27.
318. Singer, Animal Liberation, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 8.
319. Cohen & Regan, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 38–40 (arguing against bestowing rights to animals and advocating their use by humans).
320. Brian Barry, Theories of Justice 203 ff. (U. Cal. Press 1989)
321. Cavalieri, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 89.
322. See e.g. Singer, Ethics into Action; Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 156, 158.
323. See also Singer, Animal Liberation, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 154.
324. The application of the Halakhah should relate to changing circumstances. E.g. Aviner, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 432
325. Rosenfeld, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 258
326. Meisels, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 366.
327. See e.g. Jones, 347 F. Supp. 1284.
328. In this sense Jews and Muslims led the way in animal welfare. For example R. Saadiyah Gaon asserts that those merciful to animals are rewarded by Heaven. Emunoth Vedeoth Ch. V, cited in Levy & Levy, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 65.
329. Masri, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 86.
330. Waters v. People, 46 P. 112, 115 (Colo. 1896).
331. We have to note that people sometimes agree to donate organs or volunteer for medical experiments. Cf. Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, An Equitable Distribution of Hitman Organs for Transplantation (Hebrew U. Jerusalem 2003)
332. Menachem Elon, Neshamah Yetherah Bamishpat (Additional Soul in Law: A Selection of the Writings of Justice Menachem Elon) 134 ff. (Aviad Hacohen ed., Mozaikah 2003) (Hebrew).
333. See Michael D. Bayles, Introduction, in Contemporary Utilitarianism 1 (Michael D. Bayles ed., Anchor Books 1968) (“Utilitarianism is a normative theory of ethics which, in the most general terms, claims one ought to do those actions which produce good or avoid evil for everyone.”).
334. In other words see also J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, in Studies in Utilitarianism 39, 44–45 (Thomas K. Hearn, Jr. ed., Appleton-Century-Crofts 1971) (“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness.”)
335. Robert L. Arlington, Western Ethics: An Historical Introduction 318 (Maiden 1988) (discussing the theories of Bentham and Mill)
336. J.J.C. Smart, Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism, 6 J. Phil. 344 (Oct. 1956).
337. This argument might be expressed as follows: “Kantianism for people—utilitarianism for animals.” In the opinion of Kant, only humans exist as an end in themselves (independently of the fact that we should treat animals with compassion). See e.g. Kant, Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, at 239
338. Allen Wood, Humanity as End in Itself, in Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays 165, 171 (Paul Guyer ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 1998)
339. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 174.
340. The utilitarian approach is advocated by numerous authorities, e.g., Prof. Nozick who is of the opinion that animal suffering is a question of relative costs, meaning that morally, animals should not be made to suffer, but if their suffering is beneficial to humans, then it may be permissible. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia 35, 39 (Basic Books, Inc. 1974)
341. see also P. Lerner, Reflections on Feeding Stray Cats, 9 Ha-Mishpat 407 (2004) (Hebrew).
342. These criteria were published by two British scientists, Russel and Bursh in 1959. Since then they have gained acceptance by most legal systems, in spite of the differences between various countries. See M. Salvi, Integrilà e Valore Intrinseco negli Animali—Il Caso olandese, in Per un Codice degli Animali: Commenti sulla Normativa Vigente, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 210.
343. According to Singer, Rabbinical authorities in Sweden, Norway and Switzerland condoned stunning before slaughter. Singer, Animal Liberation, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 154.
344. After the visit of Chief Rabbi Goren to Sweden, this approach was changed, and stunning is no longer accepted. See Golan, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 23
345. On this point it is possible to find the agreement of authors like Barry who do not agree with multiculturalism. See Barry, Culture and Equality, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 43.
346. In Switzerland, the importing of kosher meat is not regulated although there is de facto permission. Until now, the voices calling to forbid the importing of kosher or halal meat have not succeeded in changing the status quo. See Golan, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 15.
347. Michael Mc Connell McConnell & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 56–60 (1989) (discussing the relationship between religious freedom and economics).
348. See Golan, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 23.
349. See Levinger, Schechita in the Light of the Year 2000, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays.
350. Kook, Hazon ha-tsimhomit veha-shalom, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays, at 20.
351. Responsa, Minhath Yitzhak #155.
352. This Responsum is presented (in Hebrew) in the Bar Ilan University Responsa Project CD; see Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays.
353. Id. Abo see Rabbi B. Lao Teudath Kashrulh, Behinalh Hamuzar Vetnah Shesaviv Lo, 1 Maagalei Zedek 20 ff.
354. (2004) (Hebrew) (discussing ethical problems in the context of cruelty toward animals and suggesting that the grades of Kosher licensing should take in to consideration the element of animal suffering). “So far we have stated our objections from the humane point of view, and these objections in themselves are of a religious character since it is an integral principle of the Jewish religion to be humane to animals.” Soloman David Sassoon, A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and the Jewish Method of Slaughter (Schechita) 21 (2d ed., Soloman David Sassoon 1955). “Schechita seems to us to be more humane, and certainly not less humane, than the method of stunning.”
355. Id. at 34.
356. See Animal Welfare in Europe, Id, at 8.