---

Johan Leman, 19 June 2022

To make absolutely no misunderstanding: whenever possible, I am in favour of the least painful form of having an animal slaughtered; and furthermore, I believe that the civil law may lead, if necessary, to a reinterpretation of  any divine law in this matter. I also take the view that rituals are much more flexible in their design, not in their core practice, than the insider believer usually believes. It suffices to study the practice of rituals over the years.Having made this hopefully clear, however, I believe that there are two reservations that deserve consideration in the debate on whether or not there should be unanaesthetised slaughter of animals in a ritual context. And just to be clear: this is not a Foyer opinion, but a personal opinion.

1.            Wouldn’t the debate benefit from a very broad debate on the killing of animals, also in totally different contexts, such as hunting (to limit myself to this easy example). I think that many people can live with the fact that animals are shot during hunting, but when you see some birds falling down after being shot, fluttering heavily, you do not get the impression that they are not suffering. By narrowing the debate down to the ritual slaughter in the Jewish and Muslim religions, one can create the impression of targeting cultures or a religion.

2.            It is not fair in a parliamentary democracy to simply state that politicians reason theocratically when they think they are honouring the conviction of their voters with the position they take. Is it not the purpose of a democratic debate that the opinion of the voters should be represented in parliament? Is it democratic to forbid – or even exclude – representatives of the people if they think they are expressing the opinion of their voters? One could perhaps suggest that they should abstain from voting, but expel them from a party for that? And then say afterwards that the political party doesn’t want to be a party, but a movement? It seems strange to me. Unless, of course, something was agreed in a coalition agreement… But if not?

Back