EU Court Confirms Belgium’s Ban on Non-Stunned Halal Slaughter

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling on the prohibition of Islamic halal and Jewish kosher slaughter methods without prior stunning in two Belgian regions, Flanders and Wallonia, has ignited a complex debate intertwining religious freedoms with animal welfare concerns. This decision, stemming from laws enacted in 2017 and 2018 respectively, underscores a significant cultural and legal intersection where animal rights and religious practices collide.

The backdrop to this controversy is rooted in the differing approaches towards animal slaughter across cultures and religions. Islamic halal and Jewish kosher dietary laws require that animals be fully conscious when their throats are slit—a practice that proponents argue is quick and minimizes suffering. However, animal rights advocates have long contended that stunning animals before slaughter, rendering them insensible to pain, is a more humane method. The clash between these perspectives has led to legislative actions and legal challenges across Europe, with Belgium becoming a focal point of this debate.

The ECtHR’s decision was closely watched, as it touched upon the sensitive issue of religious freedom, a cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which 46 countries are signatories. The court acknowledged that the bans indeed interfered with the applicants’ freedom of religion but concluded that this interference was justified in the pursuit of animal welfare, a legitimate aim within the convention’s framework. By allowing for reversible and non-lethal stunning methods, the court found a middle ground, suggesting that these methods could potentially align with religious slaughtering requirements while addressing animal welfare concerns.

This ruling did not emerge in a vacuum but reflects a broader European discourse on the balance between religious practices and modern ethical standards regarding animal treatment. Other publications and commentators have highlighted similar legislative efforts and court rulings across the continent. For instance, in 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld a similar ban in the Flemish region, reinforcing the precedent that animal welfare can supersede religious slaughter practices under certain conditions.

Critics of the bans, including members of the affected religious communities and several non-governmental organizations, argue that such measures are discriminatory and infringe upon their religious rights. They point out that the essence of their dietary laws cannot be fully preserved through stunning, as it contradicts the traditional requirements of halal and kosher slaughter.

The ECtHR’s ruling has also sparked a discussion on the potential implications for religious freedom and the practice of religious rituals in an increasingly secular Europe. Some fear that such decisions could pave the way for further restrictions on religious practices under the guise of public interest objectives like health, safety, and animal welfare.

In contrast, animal rights organizations have welcomed the decision, seeing it as a significant step forward in the campaign for more humane treatment of animals. They argue that the ruling sets a precedent that animal welfare is a legitimate concern that can justify certain limitations on religious practices.

As the debate continues, the Brussels region remains the last stronghold for traditional halal and kosher slaughter methods in Belgium. Whether this will change in the future or if Brussels will serve as a litmus test for the coexistence of religious freedom and animal welfare standards in Europe remains to be seen.