That's correct. The case you cite, the 2006 decision of the Federal Administrative Court, held that the constitutionality of the exemption provision in the animal protection act is unaffected by the constitutional amendment. The court said that the animal protection state objective does not prohibit granting exemptions from the requirement of stunning prior to slaughter under the animal protection act since the amendment's goal was not to provide one-sided preference to animal protection. The state objective created a constitutional interest in the balancing with religious freedom -- which only means that constitutional balancing must occur. But the result of the balancing itself is not predetermined by the existence of the state objective.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org>wrote: > > > Some Jews believe that halacha requires them to eat meat on Shabbos. That > said, for many observant Jewish prisoners, solutions like the BOP common > fare program have been sufficient. > > I should note that in Germany my understanding is that the courts have > upheld against challenge under Art. 20a the statutory exception for > religious slaughter. See e.g. http://lexetius.com/2006,3863 (in German). > > > > ________________________________________ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson [ > slevin...@law.utexas.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:18 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against > EstablishmentClause challenge > > Nick Kristoff has an interesting piece in today’s NYTimes, > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/opinion/kristof-is-an-egg-for-breakfast-worth-this.html?_r=1&hpdecrying > the treatment of chickens by “egg factories.” (One of my own > feeble gestures, presumably predictable by reference to my economic status > and politics, is that I buy eggs of cage-free chickens and don’t order > veal.) So I’m interested in the reference to Article 20a of the Basic Law. > What if a state really does try to protect all animals against cruel > treatment, including chickens, cows, pigs, harvested fish, whales in > captivity, etc.? Assuming that the practices of kosher slaughter are in > fact less humane than they “need to be” (assuming that one continues to be > non-vegetarian and therefore must support the raising and then killing of > animals, birds, and fish for our own consumption), is there any dispositive > reason for the state to accommodate a desire for kosher meat, even in an > institutional setting that offers a presumptively healthy vegetarian > option? I ask this as a genuine question, since I find myself genuinely > perplexed by the issue. > > sandy > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Claudia Haupt > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:43 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against > EstablishmentClause challenge > > I wrote about this a while ago in Free Exercise of Religion and Animal > Protection: A Comparative Perspective on Ritual Slaughter, 39 Geo. Wash. > Int'l L. Rev. 839 (2007). The article includes a discussion of the 2002 > German constitutional amendment that made animal protection a > constitutional state objective in Article 20a of the Basic Law. > > -- > Claudia E. Haupt > Professorial Lecturer in Law > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H Street, NW > Washington, DC 20052 > 202-994-8494<tel:202-994-8494> > ceha...@law.gwu.edu<mailto:ceha...@law.gwu.edu> > > My new book: Religion-State Relations in the United States and Germany > www.cambridge.org/9781107015821<http://www.cambridge.org/9781107015821> > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com<mailto: > hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote: > Chip is right, of course. > > But Eric's point requires a response. > I don't I don't think PETA folks would appreciate having their sincere > concerns about the humane treatment of > animals traced to the Nazis. To say that humane treatment concerns are > more often than > not "pretext" and then to have as your example something out of the 1930s > is singularly unpersuasive. > > > Marci A. Hamilton > Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law > Yeshiva University > 55 Fifth Avenue > New York, NY 10003 > (212) 790-0215<tel:%28212%29%20790-0215> > hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org<mailto: > erassb...@becketfund.org>> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Sent: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 1:14 pm > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against > EstablishmentClause challenge > > > > > > Chip is right that the supposedly inhumane methods of kosher/halal > slaughter > > (something US law defines as humane, btw) is one of the main public > > justifications for banning the practice. But as our brief in the New > Zealand > > kosher slaughter ban case pointed out -- > http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/NZ-kosher-brief-FINAL.pdf > > -- more often than not this is pretext. For example, this was the same > > justification the anti-Semites of the 1930s used for banning the practice > in > > several European countries. As we point out in our brief, one of the first > > things the Nazis did upon taking power was to pass a law banning kosher > > slaughter, supposedly in order "to awaken and strengthen compassion as one > of > > the highest moral values of the German people." I don't think it's too > much of > > a stretch to guess that anti-Muslim sentiment may be a subterranean > motivation > > for the humane practices argument in the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. > > > > The ironic part for me of the Mohr case was that my main experience of > > stand-alone prison pork bans is as a proposed "compromise" to settle kosher > > accommodation lawsuits. Of course pork bans don't work as a method of > kosher > > accommodation, though prison administrators keep hoping that they do. In > our now > > 6-year-old lawsuit against the Texas prison system (now on a return trip > to the > > 5th Circuit), Texas at one point floated a pork ban as a solution, which > only > > served to show that they didn't understand how kashrus works. > > > > Eric > > ________________________________________ > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On > > Behalf Of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu<mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu>] > > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:39 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against > EstablishmentClause > > challenge > > > > I think that at least part of the objections in Europe to serving only > halal > > meat in some restaurants involves objections to methods of halal animal > > slaughter which (like kosher slaughter) may not be consistent with European > > standards for humane treatment of animals in their use as food. "Halal > only" > > means all diners are "complicit" in the that particular slaughtering > process. > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Friedman, Howard M. < > howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu><mailto: > howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu?>>> > > wrote: > > > > It is interesting to compare reactions in Europe to similar situations. In > 2010, > > French politicians strongly criticized a restaurant chain that decided to > serve > > only halal meat in 8 of its restaurants with a large Muslim clientele. > > Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire said: "When they remove all the pork > from a > > restaurant open to the public, I think they fall into communalism, which is > > against the principles and the spirit of the French republic." > > See: > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/02/french-politicians-criticize-restaurant.html > > > > > > > > > > In 2007 in Britain, a primary school in Kingsgate attempted to accommodate > > religious needs of its growing Muslim student body by serving only Halal > meat in > > its lunch menus. A number of parents objected, arguing that the school was > > forcing their children to to conform to "someone else's culture." > > See > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/02/british-parents-protest-halal-menus-in.html > > > > > > > > Howard Friedman > > > > messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > -- Claudia E. Haupt Professorial Lecturer in Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20052 202-994-8494 ceha...@law.gwu.edu My new book: *Religion-State Relations in the United States and **German*y www.cambridge.org/9781107015821
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
