Friday, August 31, 2012

Whose Law?













Rabbi Warns Dutch Populist Wilders Over Ritual Slaughter Ban






Here’s where it gets sticky:


First of all, this is not about being a “friend of Israel”. One can be a friend of Israel without insisting that one’s own country follow Jewish law.

This is about the law of the land. The Netherlands is not a Jewish state. It is a secular democratic country with a long Christian tradition. The laws of the Netherlands do not have to comply with Jewish law; they must simply reflect the views and preferences of Dutch citizens.

If Jews cannot in good conscience abide by the law of the land, then yes, they may want to move to Israel — and thank God they have that choice! But the law is not required to bend to their wishes; they are obliged to accede to the law as determined by the majority of their fellow Dutch citizens.

This seems fairly simple and straightforward to me, but some Jews find it “anti-Semitic”.


I’m certain that many Jew-haters may have targeted kosher slaughter in the past, but it does not follow that everyone who opposes ritual slaughter is prima facie anti-Semitic. This is a non sequitur.

The article goes on to describe the political minefield into which Mr. Wilders has wandered:

The loss of backing from prominent Jewish leaders could be damaging to Wilders, who has enjoyed support from pro-Israeli and anti-Islam organizations in the United States.




This is mind-boggling stuff. To turn on Geert Wilders over this issue, after all his years of supporting the Jews and Israel, shows a distressing lack of perspective.

Is full compliance with the Torah the only option for a non-Jewish “friend of Israel”?


The reader who left the link to the above article in our comments had this to say about it:

The Jews have turned against Geert Wilders for his party’s support for a ban of the ritual slaughter of animals.

Because of this, the local Jews are saying he’s anti-semitic and he’s at the forefront of the anti-semitism movement in Europe.

It’s amusing the Jews are quite happy getting thumped and harassed by Muzzies but someone supports an animal rights bill, and the Jews see him as evil incarnate. With friends like that who needs enemies?

If this is the way the Jews want it. Maybe it’s time the anti-Jihad movement separates themselves from the Jewish community. A community I might that is quite supportive of Islamic immigration and rights because of their Leftist bent.

A doctor in Israel sent us an email expressing his complete support for our commenter’s position:

I whole-heartedly agree. There are numerous examples of Jews disenfranchising their friends and embracing their enemies.

The Anti-Jihad movement is there to save Europe, not Diaspora Jews.

I’ll let you in on a secret: Israeli Jews, on the Dutch tax-payers’ euro, are undermining the anti-Jihad stance of Israel.

Facing the useful idiots, we are in the same boat.

Indeed we are, and the useful idiots are unfortunately legion.

The title of this post is recycled from one I used years ago concerning sharia, but it is equally applicable to any other form of religious law. All citizens are required to comply with the laws enacted in democratic state. This is not “discrimination” — in fact, it is precisely the opposite. Full equality under laws that are equally applied to everyone is a guarantee against discrimination.

It is not “anti-Islamic” to insist on full legal equality between men and women.

It is not “anti-Christian” to pass laws legalizing abortion.

And it is not “anti-Semitic” for a democratically elected legislature to pass a law against certain forms of ritual slaughter.

The law of the land must be obeyed by all citizens — period.


Anonymous said...

What is going to be necessary to stave off Islam is the re-imposition of European Christian dominion.

Many groups (not just Muslims) are going to howl bloody murder.


Dr. Jeff said...

It is a basic problem that will be faced all over the world. Here in the U.S., freedom of religion and religious practice is nearly unlimited. This is both our Constitutional law and our tradition.

In the coming years as the Jihad movement becomes bolder and steps will have to be taken to curb Islamic violence, the question will become where to draw the line? Which religious practices will we permit and which religious practices will we have to curtail?

It's a question that we have never dealt with in our entire history. There have been some issues on the subject in the past, Mormon polygamy for one, the various blue laws you cite for another, but in general most laws enforcing or banning a religious practice have been deemed unconstitutional.

As a Jew, I am scared that the same laws and principles that will be necessary to stop the Jihadis, will encourage anti Semitic laws and practices as well.

Where and how doe we draw the line once we have diminished our First Amendment?

Truthiocity said...

The official jewish line on this, as I recall from saturday school, is that according to Judaism it is that when there is a conflict between secular law of a country and jewish law, the law of the land that is to be followed.

That doesn't mean don't campagn or lobby for what you want the law to be, but if the law changes about something relatively unimportant like kosher slaughter, then according to talmudic teaching, perfectly fine.

That being said, are there non kosher processors in the netherlands who don't stun the animals? Are there Halal meat procesers there too?

If not then that would make this a bit more fishy as it only affects jews.

I have read stories where similar laws were passed in other countries. The results were that kosher processors were affected yet halal processors ignored. Those shenannagans only became known after the law was passed and kosher meat production had stopped.

One last thought. I believe according to judaism in general, that had such specific attitudes been in the air in ancient times, they could very well have been adopted if possible.

After all the reason you aren't supposed to eat milk with meat, oe rather, the calf with it's mothers milk, is that it is considered cruel. So the idea that you should respect and not misstreat animals beyond what was necessary was an element of ancient jewish thought.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Jewish kosher slaughter is that the animal suffers. Jewish law forbids using any injured animal as food. Stunning an animal is viewed as injuring it. Hence, kosher slaughter forbids the stunning of an animal to prevent its suffering during slaughter.

My feeling is that the law ought to mandate that any method of slaughter which causes an animal to suffer is forbidden, not just specific means of ritual slaughter. Perhaps the Jews can develop a method which will not physically damage an animal, but prevent it from being aware of any pain. Electric current to the brain, flashing lights...who knows? We are sending probes to Mars in real time. We can solve a problem of painless slaughter.

So, lets go ahead and write a law that embodies what we really want: painless killing of animals for food. The people who want to eat religiously-sanctioned food then have the task of being flexible enough to meet the law, while retaining the religious character of their meat slaughter.

Columnist said...

Simple. Don't play games about animal rights, but state that you don't like Islam. Then you can forbid halal slaughter, but allow kosher slaughter.
The obsession with animal rights is an Atheist obsession.

Anonymous said...

I think the Baron has stated the issue forcefully and clearly.One law for all! this principle goes back to the pre-Christian roots of the Europeans, and in its modern form it is a child of the Reformation. But the law can only help us so far in maintaining harmony in the community. When it comes to Muslims and Jews, on the one hand, and Europeans (or Euro-Americans) on there other, there are fundamental cultural differences which the law cannot bridge to create support for the same law. The treatment of animals is one such difference. The Muslims look a dog and think "dirty dog," while a typical European will see a descendent of the noble wolf. The hunter or herder with his dog are archetypes of proud self-relaince for the European way of thinking. But one cannot legislate this. The law papers over the differenes, for a time, but when the power balance shifts, there will be trouble.

Anonymous said...

An anti-semite is not someone who hates Jews. An anti-semite is a person who the Jews hate. Wilders
should not take such expected comments too seriously.The European
position on cruelty to animals is a decent view, Islam and Juaism are
very much out-of-date on this issue.

Nick said...

It is absurd that these people would turn on such an outspoken, long-term friend of Israel.

I hope there are plenty other people in Israel, and around the world, who realise how genuinely supportive (i.e. it's not done for political gain - far from it!) Wilders and his colleagues are of Israel.

Apparently these people who are critical of Wilders expect others to support absolutely everything they want - no exceptions - but they won't extend the same courtesy to other people. That is to say, they will turn on their friends over one issue, and ignore everything else that's going on in the world, and the support Israel receives in many, many ways.

Let me tell you, anyone who truly loves and supports Israel knows perfectly well that there are far more pressing problems on the horizon than how someone cooks burgers and sausages in Holland!

It's a non-issue anyway. The rule of law applies to all equally, and I don't care what your background or culture is, if you choose to live in Holland you have to abide by Dutch law. So what are these people getting fussed about? Do they disagree with this principle? Do they want special treatment? If so, then who else must receive it? Those who would harm them? Do they really want to go down that road?

Can't they see that ensuring that the rule of law applies to everyone prevents a society from heading down the slippery slope to another Kristallnacht?

Dymphna said...

The Baron makes a good point with our history of the blue laws. They were hated by many and gradually overturned county by county in state by state.

My question: why did Mr. Wilders step in this tar baby to begin with? He could have simply kept quiet, no? Or was there political pressure for him to take a stand?

When the Mormons were forced to give up polygamy, the fight was bloody - and in remote places in Mormon territory the practice continues and it's ugly.

A coincidence, I saw a picture of a happy menage a trois in the Netherlands -two women and a man- who had legally married & were posing for their wedding pictures.

Permitting the various permutations of "unions" that are sure to follow is far more corrosive for our cultural foundations than ritual slaughter.

The Netherlands bends over backwards, contorting itself, in the name of an uber-tolerance that becomes ever more degraded the further down it slides on the slippery slope of "anything goes". And now they draw a line in the sand *here*??

Ironicallly, the Muslims began many of their "rituals" by aping Jewish practices - you'll notice how Mohammed & etc., copied and changed some parts of Mosaic Law in its outer aspects without ever grasping the inner impulse driving that behavior.

Without the massive influx of Islam into Europe, this wouldn't even be a question. It's not about "persecuting" Jews, it's about reining in Islamic practices of all kinds. Jewish ritual slaughter is simply one more unintened consequence that the planners who dreamed up Eurabia back in the 70s failed to consider.

I can see why Jews are suspicious of this move, but while it involves them, it's not about Jews, per se. It's about the sacred rights of animals pushed by groups who place animals on a higher plane than humans. If the more extreme folks in that group had their way, humans would be killed or die out, leaving Gaia to let the animals slaughter one another in peace.

Anonymous said...

copying this over from VT where it was republished...

A number of points I think add to the discussion, but first I will say quite clearly, I keep a kosher kitchen, we only occasionally buy kosher meat, but due to the expense its fairly rare, and mostly poultry which I hope is not within the scope of any intended ban.
Luckily we all like fish which is plentiful and healthy where we are.

Whenever ritual slaughter is discussed, halal and kosher are described as the same, this is very wrong.
Regard for animal welfare is extreme with kosher laws (we don’t let kids hack at goats in the street), even a bruise on the animal makes it unkosher, the sharpness of the blade must be like a razor, the idea is the animal doesn’t even know it’s been cut, so it is also very long so only a single stroke can be used. This is not the case with halal where we see lambs being hacked at with dull blades.
there are many other differences. Many are listed here which I believe is of some authority

Without counter jihad movements even talking about ritual slaughter and circumcision there is already a great fear that the movements are racist, while we all know that is untrue, it’s a suspicion many people have. The fact that one of hitlers first laws attacking Jews was to ban kosher slaughter will confirm for many Jews suspicions they held, it is a very sensitive issue and I am disappointed Geert didn’t handle it better.

I believe the main issue which gets us all riled is that there is so much halal, labelled or not, major supermarkets, fast food restaurants and local authorities using it because it’s basically cheaper, thereby you are all forced to eat it (obviously I don’t :) ). The vast majority of halal meat is unlabelled whereas the opposite is true of kosher.

Another thing that is actually pertinent here is that most halal authorities do allow stunning, but at a lower voltage, and in muslims sharia laws if halal meat is not available they can eat the local meat, there is no similar allowances for Jews in halacha (Jewish law).

I know the intention is not anti-Semitic, but the action would be very harmful to Jews, many would take it personally, and for a group who really don’t ask for much but often contribute a great deal to society, a very bad move.

Errbe said...

Priests of all religions tend to overemphasize the importance of cermonies and the respect their believers show these. There are secular christians, secular moslems and secular jews.

I know a few jews, who never made fuss about ham in the business lunch I offered, because I did not know they were jewish. They had not particularly pointed that out.

One of them confessed that he observed the religious rules only at family reunions.

The priests may miss out on the concern the majority of their believers have for traditional ceremonies.

Anonymous said...


The largest part of discarding rational thought is to summarily and wholeheartedly label everyone who disagrees with Jews (en masse or individual) as Jew-haters.

"...they are obliged to accede to the law as determined by the majority of their fellow Dutch citizens."

Whoa! History shows us that it is an EXTREMELY dangerous idea that majority rule obliges people to accede to the law. Indeed, for the USA, the founding fathers created checks and balances in a republican form of government so that majority - or mob - rule might be avoided for as long as possible. The purposeful deletion of checks and balances by greedy and evil people has led to the deterioration of God-given human rights that we experience today.

The Christian God is the source of Western human rights which have been defined and protected in the West by people with Christian values and mores.

Look around the world people: It is Christians who guarantee human rights. No Christians equals no human rights which is WHY governments persecute Christians to institute the New World Order.

An innocent acknowledgement of the 'legitimacy' of majority mob rule ultimately institutes Muslim rule as Muslims outbaby everyone else to become the majority in Western countries.

As to kosher slaughter, the Jews just like many modern immigrants seek to USE the many benefits of Western societies while still remaining fundamentally separate from those societies - mainly by preaching supremacist religious doctrine to their own adherents.

Westerners who notice any divided loyalties of self-segregated religious adherents and immigrants are loudly and vigorously accused of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or racism.

Western Jews consider and state that Israel is their homeland - instead of the Western societies which provide them a home.

Western Muslims profess loyalty to both their Muslim homelands and to Islam and work to change Western societies to be ruled by Islamic Sharia Law.



rickl said...

What I find a little odd is that the leader of the Party for Freedom supports banning certain traditional practices.

I'm opposed to gratuitous cruelty to animals, but I also believe in religious freedom.

My libertarian tendencies tell me that all practices should be permitted, and the meat should be clearly labeled so that consumers have a choice in the products they purchase. Jews would be free to buy kosher, Muslims would be free to buy halal, and those animal-rights supporters who are not vegetarians would be able to buy "cruelty-free" meat, or whatever they want to call it. The rest of us would just buy whatever tastes best.

I agree with RonaldB earlier. At the root this is a technical problem that is probably solvable to everyone's satisfaction.

ChrisLA said...

The controversy over ritual slaughter seems to be similar to the recent controversy over male circumcision. Until recently, just about everyone who was born in a hospital was circumcised --- regardless of religion. Today, many young people believe that circumcision is harmful to the psyche of their children, and so they oppose it. Ballot initiatives in San Francisco and Santa Monica have been drafted to outlaw male circumcision. (It is possible that the anti-circumcision movement had no intention of targeting Muslims and Jews, but was just interested in stopping it in general.) The idea of "one law for all" is running into problems, particularly when religion is involved.

Anonymous said...

It's a question of basic freedom

You don't tell me how to eat, how to raise my children, how to clean myself, how to butcher my animals

It's not a question of the law of the land - no one is interfering on how citizens deal with each other .

Rather, it's the State that is coming to my house and overseeing how I eat and in what manner.

It is impudent.

emanuel appel

Anonymous said...

Yes but the difficulty is that people don't butcher their own meat. There are whole industries which take care of that for us, and there's a lot of money and jobs involved.

Let's just say that there are Islamic meat processing plants, shops and employees working in those places. They will be by their very nature discriminatory - jobs for the boys!

Not to mention the relentless push to serve such food in schools, etc. And to label meat in supermarkets etc.

All just one aspect of the inexplicable desire on the part of Western politicians to bend over on our behalf and let Islam creep into our lives in one way or another.

As we're finding out, if we give the insatiable entity that is Islam an inch, it'll take a yard and a half.

So drawing a line in the sand is a good idea - and it's long overdue. Why here? Why not? It's as good a place as any.

Linda Fox said...

The trouble with this thinking is that it could be used to prohibit traditional circumcision - which would affect, again, both Jews and Muslims.

For all their stated "tolerance", the Dutch don't seem to be very tolerant of tradition, particularly as it applies to religion.

Robert Marchenoir said...

In Switzerland, both forms of ritual slaughter, kosher and hallal, have been forbidden since late 19th century.

Actually, it was done through referendum. The first referendum in Swiss history.

So there you go.

A few muslim butchers are opening up, unfortunately. They have to import their meat.

rickl said...

At the risk of veering off-topic, from my reading on the subject I think the anti-circumcision movement is mainly led by male homosexuals.

There are well-documented hygienic benefits of circumcision, which is why it has become almost universal in secular Western culture.

I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim, and I was circumcised in a hospital as an infant. I don't feel that I was "mutilated" or am "missing" anything, and any pain I may have suffered back then has been completely forgotten.

felix said...

Call me dense, but I don't understand why Dutch politicans care about Kosher or Halal meat slaughter practices. Aren't there more important issues of concern? Why should the counter-jihad movement (which is a minority position in EU) alienate a segment of their support--over what?

Anonymous said...

No one here has addressed the fact that the whole issue of interfering in a man's life is impudent

NO Dutch or western Party is proposing legislation that would upset Moslems. Why? Because of cowardice. They attack the one who's safe to attack, the Jew.

The State has rules regulating the population's interaction. That's proper. But, to come into my house, look at my chicken, or beef, and tell me I can't eat it is the height of absurdity.

If any country has laws against against how an animal is butchered, the law should be immediately disobeyed as invalid.

If Israel passed a law forbidding baptism, you'd be up in arms. But, you tell us not to circumcise without blushing. Shame!

emanuel appel

Anonymous said...

As a Jew, I have always supported Geert Wilders. My support of him came, not only because of his support of the Jews and Israel, but because he was a man that saw the problems in his country and dealt with them head on. Time and time again, he went to the root of a problem rather than deal with the symptoms. I always applauded that approach.
The issue now in front of us, as I see it, is thus.
Time and again, all our rights are being abrogated because of our fight against shariah. In Canada, all religious courts were dismantled so that shariah courts could not be established. In American, many of our rights were curtailed with the Patriot Act so that our government could more effectively fight terrorism and by extension, shariah. Now using foreign law in our court systems is being fought to keep out shariah. No one minded when an American court used French law to decide a divorce case with two French nationals because French law was compatible with American law. But when shariah raised its ugly head, we were horrified.
Now the Netherlands want to pass a law that keeps the horrific practice of shariah out of their country. And once again many citizens are being adversely affected.
For many, many years, the religious practices of Jews, Christians, Catholics and Buddhas were ignored because they did not affect anyone else. Now, because the muslims want to introduce shariah, all religious practices are under scrutiny. Jews are understandably upset because they do not want to become vegetarians.
Add to the mix, animal right’s groups who feel that animals are more important then people and you have the toxic, painful, angry discussions we see now. Jews, in particular, are incensed, when their religious practices are lumped in with the muslim’s horrid practices.
While I understand and support the law of the land, it would be nice if laws could be passed that did not have so many innocent and unintended victims.
It is really shariah law that we all have a problem with. It is the introduction of shariah that horrifies the average citizen and upsets the balance we all enjoyed.
My disappointment with Geert Wilders is that I was hoping that he could do what other politicians could not do. Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I was hoping that, once again, he could and would get to the heart of the matter. In outlawing shariah he would have angered 10% or less of his countries population and kept the great majority happy. Since the muslims are good at moving the goal posts, even they would have found a way to continue eating meat, in a way that Jews cannot.
I will always support Geert Wilders because he is a good man. But I still wish that in America, Canada and the Netherlands we all did not have to pay a heavy price just to keep islam and the muslims at bay. Why not just outlaw them and leave the rest of us alone?

Anonymous said...

The issue so far as I am concerned is the way part of the Jewish community has (apparently) turned on Geert Wilders, who is as outspoken and genuine a supporter of Israel as you'll get anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Jews did not turn on Geert Wilders.

His party is supporting a ridiculous law regarding what you eat. If I started a campaign to protect Herring, a Dutch staple, from processing wouldn't people call me demented?
emanuel appel

Anonymous said...

This proposal is not "silly" and it's not anti-Semitic. It's also not anti-muslim. What it IS, however, is an attempt to reign in an outdated, cruel way of killing an animal, which is both hilal and kosher slaughter.

How people find ways to justify this type of animal cruelty is beyond me.

laller said...

What most of you don't seem to realise, is that muslims are actually more willing to compromise than jews are. Even though most meat from danish slaughterhouses is halal certified, it actually comes from animals that were stunned before having their throats cut. On cows etc. they use a modified bolt pistol, which has a metal plate at the end, thus avoiding penetrating the skull. Thus halal slaughter leaves it's barbarism behind, while kosher is kosher is kosher.

Emmanuel Appel

Your sons' body is not yours to abuse as you see fit. His body is not your property. And for you to compare circumcision with babtism shows how demented the religious argument is. A bit of water does NOT compare to having surgery done!


jeppo said...

Wiki says that there are 944,000 Muslims in the Netherlands, compared to 35,900 Jews. What if one-quarter of each of these groups (235,000 Muslims and 9,000 Jews) left the country because of these anti-halal/kosher laws? Would that be a bad thing?

These laws are clearly targeting Islam and Wilders is right to support them.

Anonymous said...

If I proposed that all herring be stunned before being gutted, you'd call me crazy.

All of you who'd invade a man's home to supervise how he eats are tyrants of the worst petty variety. Yes, your strong enough to push girls around.

emanuel appel

Anonymous said...

It is absurd that in the 21st century some religions claim the “right” to torture animals in order to fulfil their ritual customs in a specific traditional way which is many centuries old. It is even blasphemous that they claim that “right” on the basis of “the freedom of religion”. In several countries Western civilization has reached a level at which such barbaric practices are legally countered, like in earlier times slavery, corporal punishment and the death penaltiy, as well as f.e. the stoning of adulterous women which was still done in Biblical times. This legal intervention is not only in the interest of the animals but also a matter of human decency. In the present case in the Netherlands, the Partij voor de Dieren (the Party for the Animals) has gone to far lengths to reach an agreement with Jewish and Islamic organizations acceptable to all concerned. This appeared not to be possible. Then, most political parties have withdrawn their support for the bill, under pressure by lobby groups. Some parties, however, like Wilders’ did uphold their support. By lack of sufficient support the bill was in the end not adopted. It is very good that Wilders does not bargain with his principles. He is not a puppet of his sponsors. Besides there are many Jews nowadays who acknowledge that a specific traditonal way of ritual slaughter is not essential for their belief.


Anonymous said...

Wilders was targeted and smeared by the Jewish community as an anti-semite for supporting this anti-animal cruelty law. The fact they'd turn on a man who trying to stop the growth of Islam and real anti-semitism(the kind where Jews are assaulted and murdered). Does call into question whether or not the Jewish community can see beyond their own religious interests and to the larger picture.

As one wag put it, it's not about you. Sure you can make the claim what Wilders did is anti-semitic, the same way the Left labels people who disagree with Obama as racist or xenophobic. But the bottom line, it's a nasty form of political bullying and shutting down dialog. If the Jews want to go down that road so be it, but it makes them look bad and they will lose friends real fast with that nasty attitude.

What is particularly galling for me is the fact is you don't see this sort of concerted outcry and PR effort from the European Jewish community when a rabbi gets shot dead by a Muzzie, openly harassed in Sweden or roughed as one was in Germany. These and other acts are far worse than making it a rule to stun a meat animal prior to slaughter. Yet not a peep from the European Jews.

All in all, I am flabbergasted at this sort of self-serving and collective blindness on display by European Jewry. I thought after WWII they'd at least be cognizant who are their mortal enemy is, but it's clear they refuse to see.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 9/1, 11:30 am.

I was interested in finding out more about kosher slaughter from an authoritative source, rather than relying on hearsay. But when I copied and pasted your link, I found that it did not work. Nor did it work when I substituted .com for .htm (if I'm recalling the last 3 letters correctly). What is the correct internet address?

Anonymous said...


As I said, those Animal Rights folks are useless to dangerous. But it is inherent in Atheism to oppose "speciesism".

Anonymous said...

here's that link anon @ 9/02/2012 10:38 PM

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't agree that in USA the religious freedom is unlimited. I recommend this paper on the subject of religious slaughter.