Following the judgment rendered Thursday by the Constitutional Court in the case of the ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning , several elected officials in Brussels have called for an initiative of the Vervoort government. In the Brussels Region, ritual slaughter without stunning is currently not prohibited. The Minister of Animal Welfare Bernard Clerfayt indicated, as soon as the judgment was delivered, that he would put the file on the government’s table.
In addition to the N-VA which wants the rapid examination by the parliament of its proposed ordinance on the matter updated last January, the MR pleaded so that we advance on this issue. “I hope that the Minister of Animal Welfare will keep his word and that we will finally be able to make progress on this issue in sincerity and serenity”, commented Thursday the elected MR Gaëtan Van Goidsenhoven, also president of the association. Veeweyde.
For her part, the independent Brussels MP Victoria Austraet (ex Dier Animal) felt that the Brussels government should now assume its responsibilities without postponing the file to the Greek calendar.
“Today, Brussels is the only region in the country to authorize the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. If the issue is not included in the Government’s regional policy statement, we know his minister of animal welfare, Bernard Clerfayt, particularly attentive to the pronouncements of the various jurisdictional bodies “, she said.
For the animalist deputy, the judgments of the Constitutional Court must lead to taking responsibility in Brussels. The opposite, in the head of a government that wants to be at the forefront of the theme of animal welfare, would be incomprehensible.
The Constitutional Court has ruled definitively on the appeals for annulment against the Walloon and Flemish decrees prohibiting slaughter without stunning. Verdict: This ban is constitutional. As regards the substance, the Court considers that this measure meets “a pressing social need” and that it is “proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued consisting of promoting animal welfare”.
Slaughter without stunning is a customary practice of Muslim and Jewish religious rites. But as the independent parliamentarian recalls, “the objective is not to prevent believers from living according to their rites. It is about adding an additional precaution to spare animals unnecessary pain.” In Wallonia and Flanders, the balance between protection of animals and freedom of worship has indeed been found: the stunning method before a ritual slaughter must be reversible, to better meet the ritual prescriptions.
The CAL is delighted that the primacy of civil law is recalled
The Secular Action Center (CAL) welcomed Thursday that the primacy of civil law over religious interests was recalled after the Constitutional Court had rejected appeals against the ban on ritual slaughter without dizziness. For the Center d’Action Laïque, “the Constitutional Court firmly reminds us that the principle of the separation of churches and the State is essential”. Religious prescriptions “cannot prevail over civil law and cannot undermine a concern of general interest, in this case animal welfare”, he notes.
Societal debates regularly see certain particular interests questioning the role of the State in the political and legal arena. “The Court here formulates a much needed reminder at one point: civil law prevails in all circumstances over religious interests. This is the best guarantee that no particular religious conviction is able to impose its views on the whole. of society “, reacted the secretary general of CAL Benoit Van Der Meerschen.
Note: This article have been indexed to our site. We do not claim ownership or copyright of any of the content above. To see the article at original source Click Here