Freedom of religion v animal rights in Poland?

Hi I am a muslim. The basic theory behind kosher and halal slaughter is that of severing major vessels in the neck of the animal with a sharp blade, swiftly, without prior injury (stunning is considered injurious). In Islam it is also specifically stipulated that other animals should not see what is happening or be distressed or afraid and the one being killed should not know until the last possible moment that death is imminent. Livestock should also be reared humanely. These are all mandatory elements to declare meat halal. If any one of those elements is missing, it is not halal. Based on that, it is safe to say that much of the meat we see on our tables these days is not truly "halal", even if it has a stamp on it that says so. Chances are that it was not killed out of sight of other animals and it may even have been reared in "battery" conditions. But that is another issue.

Focusing solely on the point of death, there is little evidence that stunning an animal actually eliminates its pain. If we were to administer a general anaesthetic, yes there would be better but still imperfect evidence that the animal was truly pain-free at the point of death. By the same token, if electrical stunning was so effective, surely it could be used to elicit hypnosis (by which I mean the unconsciousness element of anaesthesia, the other two elements being analgesia and paralysis) in human patients. Of course we all know that is not reality. In addition to the above, the spinal cord should remain intact while the blood drains. This is to enable sufficient vascular tone to facilitate blood draining. Stunning and severance of the spinal cord at the point of cutting actually both promote coagulation and impair the process of draining (by different biological mechanisms). So to summarise the science, there is well considered method behind the act and at least as much scientific justification for it vs against it, if not moreso in favour. If stunning is simply to reduce pain, it remains technically unproven, however the disadvantages of stunning in terms of coagulation of blood are documented.

Additionally, the act of taking a life in such a way should in theory at least promote a sense of empathy by the slaughterer towards another living being. At the moment when the knife connects that animal is fully aware and alive. There is a complete physical connection between a conscientious slaughterer and a conscious animal. This empathy is of future benefit as it reminds the slaughterer of that same essence that exists in all living beings. It has something in common with the stories our grandparents who served in armies long before this era of clinical warfare, might have related to us regarding the difference between killing someone with a bayonet and ordering in an artillery strike. I consider myself fortunate in that I have in the past been told by my elderly relative, who served against the Japanese in WW2, that killing a man with a bladed weapon is much more sobering in that sense, and results in far deeper internal reflection about the concepts of death and mortality.

Apologies for the lengthiness but I had no other way to make these points.

Or you get used to that sort of killing and blood and start beheading people left and right.

From a constituional standpoint, the Polish constitution speaks of freedom to practise one's relgion but does not
mention 'animal rights' or 'humane slaughter'. Therefore the kosher ban is unconstituional.

The most humane methods of animal handling up to and including slaughter are probably those worked out by the American autistic Temple Grandin, who claims to understand who animals think and who helped develop a protocol for not distressing the animals before they are quickly killed before they can tell what's coming.

Here she discusses animal handling and processing in a beef plant.

youtube.com/watch?v=VMqYYXswono

and here a pork plant.

youtube.com/watch?v=LsEbvwMipJI

It looks far preferable to the kosher/halal videos (where the animals often seem far too aware of what's about to happen).

+1

Here is a very interesting link: carnism.org/carnism-presentations

Begs one question, Why do we love cats and dogs, eat pigs and wear cow skin?

I appreciate that, and in the original middle eastern conditions that gave rise to that form of ritual slaughter they probably did make a lot of sense and were more humane than other options. But technology marches on and there are far more human options now that make use of knowledge not available to early followers of middle eastern religions.

There's also a question of economy of scale where increased populations make k/h slaughter either completely uneconomical or degrades the process so that it's not very close to the original conditions (not to mention the fact that much modern ritual slaughter is done in free rider conditions within non-ritual conditions).

In the context of Europe, halal seems less about anything like religion and more about maintaining religions for their own sake and or keeping the lines between muslims and non-muslims as distinct as possible (making it easier for parents to subvert the assimilation process by passing on their culture shock trauma to their children).

there's a great movie about temple grandin i advise people to watch it .

To make it clear:
Polish (just as EU) law dosen't consider ritual slaughter in Jewish or Muslim communes and religion organizations. It is precisely described in distinct legislation and not restricted. Dot.

- - -
Polish parliament tried to change a low considering only ritual slaughter in industrial slaughter-houses which is now compatible to EU law. Industrial ritual slaughter needs a certification proces which is very profitable for rabbis, ulems, farmers, business, etc, that's why we heard about anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism again. Nobody consider exalted teenagers opinon. It is just a big money.