RSS
Home
Pasado's Safe Haven sues over the Washington State Humane Slaughter Act
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Used with permission of Pasado's Safe Haven
Chapter 16.50 of the Revised Code of Washington, tilted "Humane Slaughter Act", was enacted some 40 years ago and regulates the killing of some animals (for example it excludes chickens) for food. Section 16.50.100 provides that slaughter "shall be carried out only by humane methods[.]". Section 16.50.110 defines the term "human method" as requiring to render the animal "insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted thrown, cast or cut[.]". The section allows for an exception for ritual killings. In such cases, a "humane method" of killing an animal is acceptable if it follows the practice of any religion where the animal's throat is cut. Section 16.50.120 further allows an exception from following a "humane method" if the State's Agricultural Director finds that doing so would cause undue hardship on the person slaughtering the animal. Section 16.50.150 further defines, and hence allows for, any ritual slaughter consistent with religious rituals. Violation of Washington's Humane Slaughter Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a $250 fine or imprisonment for no more than 90 days.
Webster's NewWorld Dictionary (2nd College Edition) defines "humane" as: "usually associated directly with having what are considered the best qualities of mankind; kind, tender, merciful, sympathetic, etc.[.]". The term "slaughter" is defined as" "1. the killing of an animal or animals for food; butchering 2. the killing of a human being, esp. in a brutal manner 3. the killing of people in large numbers, as in battle[.]" Finally, an "oxymoron" is: "a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas or terms are combined." One could argue that any killing, whether of a human being or an animal, can never be associated with "the best qualities of mankind", or that the killing act can ever be "kind" or "tender." Though one can see a killing to be "merciful" or "sympathetic" were living would only cause untold and uncontrollable pain.
Besides the fact that the term "humane slaughter" is an apparent oxymoron, Pasado's seeks to eliminate the double standard that exists under the law. Hence, as Pasado's argues and as the law provides, humane slaughter is meant to prevent the needless suffering of animals who are being put to death to provide us with food. As Pasado's further points out, from the point of view of the animal, it is irrelevant whether its killer or slaughterer is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, or belongs to any other of the seemingly infinite number of religions. Hence, as drafted, the Washington State Slaughter Act protects anyone from any form of animal killing so long as it's done according to religious rituals, regardless of how it's done and regardless of whether it inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. Yet, the same method of killing would be a misdemeanor when not done because of religious beliefs. As Pasado's puts it: "Thus, if a Christian were to use the same kosher slaughter technique as a Jew, the Christian would be prosecuted criminally - while the Jew would not."
Pasado's argues that the law, as it is written and applied, violates Washington's Establishment Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, as well as the US Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments. Washington's Establishment Clause, Article I, Section 11 of the State's Constitution, provides: "[n]o public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment[.]" Washington's Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 1, Section 12 of the State's Constitution provides that: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens[,] privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens[.]" The US Constitution's First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]". The Fourteenth Amendment provides: "[N]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[.]"
The State has responded by arguing that Pasado's lacks standing to sue (i.e., that the law has not "hurt" or "damaged" Pasado's and hence it cannot sue); that the matter was not ready for judicial review; and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Pasado's points out that the lawsuit is not intended to disparage any religious views. In fact, Pasado's also points out that "core religious tenets of the Jewish and Muslim faith support compassion to animals that is arguably not served by [ ] the law." This should be intuitive to all of us. One would think that we would we would be respectful and thankful of animals who provide the very nutrition we rely on to survive. After all, we spend billions to make sure our companion animals are cared for and happy. Yet, they do not provide for our survival though they bring us untold joy and love.
Full Disclosure: While the author volunteered at Pasado's for a few months, he has no interest and is not receiving any compensation or benefits from Pasado.
For More Information: RCW 16.50: apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx; Pasado's Safe Haven: www.pasadosafehaven.org/index.html
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
