Right to eat animal flesh – right to painless slaughter
One’s right to consume what one desires is one’s choice, unless restricted for some reason or the other. The choices are many, as are the reasons. Some relish animal flesh, vegetarians abstain from eating flesh and vegans avoid all animal products. The reasons too are varied – health, religious or compassion to animals. But, animals have no choice as to how they should be slaughtered for man’s consumption.
Centuries ago humans ate humans. Cannibalism is no more, though there is evidence of its rare occurrence for cultic purposes. There have also been isolated instances like when an Uruguayan Air Force Flight crashed in 1972 forcing some survivors to eat the dead passengers. Serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish were obsessed with eating humans. Dahmer condemned to death, died on the electric chair. Fish sentenced to 16 terms of life imprisonment, was bludgeoned to death by a fellow prisoner.
Laws cannot prohibit the consumption of animal flesh. But laws can regulate animal slaughter by providing for humane methods, though some argue that slaughter can never be humane.
In Sri Lanka, animal slaughter is at its cruellest. Cattle, goats, pigs, poultry and other livestock suffer agonizing deaths not only in abattoirs, but also in roadside “meat boutiques” where carcasses are on public display and in some home backyards.
There is unceasing agitation to introduce humane slaughter methods. In 2010, 14 Buddhist and animal welfare organizations, through a case filed in the Court of Appeal called upon the government to introduce humane slaughter laws. In 2013, a Cabinet Memorandum for this purpose lay on the table of then Local Government Minister A.L.M. Athaullah for many months without signature. His successor Minister Karu Jayasuriya, was willing to take up the matter, but before he could proceed he was appointed Speaker. Since then this is pending before the current Local Government Minister Faiszer Mustapha.
Opposition to humane slaughter comes from a majority of the Muslim community who view it as a threat to their religious practice of Halal slaughter.
However, the nuanced animal rights campaigner does not fight against any race or religion, but pleads for the animal’s welfare during slaughter, with no intention to offend Muslim sensitivity. Humane slaughter does not necessarily contradict Halal slaughter. Continuous efforts by members of the court acknowledged Steering Committee on Animal Welfare to meet Minister Mustapha to explain that humane slaughter is possible without infringing Islamic religious rights have so far failed – the Minister’s busy schedule being cited as the reason, the most recent being his duties concerning the Local Government elections, now come and gone.
Conditions laid down by the Department of Halal Certification Europe require the slaughter method to be that which is least painful to the animal, the slaughtering instrument should not be sharpened in front of the animal, no animal should be slaughtered in front of another and the animal must be slaughtered in one stroke using a sharp knife. But does this happen in actual practice?
This columnist recalls a desperately anxious Muslim politician, whose little grandson lay on a hospital bed with a rising fever, commenting that the fever may have been caused by the anguish suffered by the child witnessing an animal being slaughtered in his home for Hajj.
Mohammed Agus Yusoff and Athambawa Sarjoon in “Anti-Halal and Anti-Animal Slaughtering Campaigns and their Impact in Post-War Sri Lanka” acknowledge the intention of Islamic law to ensure a more humane slaughtering process that reduces the animal’s suffering “which in a sense, is common ground for decent people, both believers and non-believers of Islam.”
Several countries have laws for humane slaughter requiring animals to be rendered insensible to pain prior to slaughter.
This columnist recollects a visit to Africa where tourists admired wildlife in safari parks and later devoured the flesh of those animals, a la carte or from the buffet table. Then, there are Buddhist vegetarians who have become meat-eaters because the wife finds a vegetarian husband un-masculine or because they do not want to throw away leftovers or have no courage to resist a challenge.
In Buddhism, based on compassion, it is wrong to kill or harm any living being. Hinduism advocates “ahimsa”- the “Bhagwatha Purana” states that one should consider all animals like one’s own children. Islam is a religion of mercy where in Prophet Mohammed’s words “an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as an act of cruelty to a human.” In Christianity, Jesus’ love for animals is vividly demonstrated by His frequent association with animals.
Humans are considered the most intelligent species on this planet. But very few are capable of enlightened thinking. Noble religions are misinterpreted to suit personal fancies and agendas.
“Let all animal flesh be unpalatable to humans so they will refrain from eating it,” is a born vegetarian’s daily prayer.
Humans have a right to eat what they desire – the choice is theirs. Animals have a right to a painless death – but they have no choice.