World Jewish Congress Issues Deceptive Misleading Statement To UN On Shechita And Circumcision

"…Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect, at a time when humanity had not begun to think in terms of animal rights. Quite conveniently, some prefer to ignore the origin of the values they claim to defend. If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport. But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter.…"

WJC's Lisa Rahmani testifying before the UN this week

Put simply, the World Jewish Congress (WJC) lied to the UN earlier this week about shechita (ritual slaughter) and circumcision.

Here is the WJC statement in full, followed by an explanation of the falsehoods in it:

Bans on practices such as shechita, circumcision infringe religious freedom, WJC tells UN rights body

12 March 2014

GENEVA/NEW YORK – The World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Wednesday called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognize as violations of religious freedom any bans or limitations on the right to practice Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter of animals and male circumcision.

“We call on the governments of all UN member states to stop any attempts to abridge these crucial religious freedoms,” said WJC CEO Robert Singer. “We hope that the UN Human Rights Council, via its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, will issue a clear statement that bans or limitations on religious slaughter and circumcision are attacks on fundamental liberties, and that the affirmation of those liberties will serve to deter such attacks.”

In a statement delivered before the UN Human Rights Council currently in session in Geneva, WJC decried the “increasing number of government actions that seek to condemn and ban these religious practices” and called on UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief Heiner Bielefeldt “to consider limitations on ritual slaughter and circumcision as violations of freedom of religion in his next report to the Council.” Bielefeldt is expected to complete his report next year.

The WJC statement was delivered by Lisa Rahmani, a member of the WJC’s Jewish Diplomatic Corps program. Originally from France, Rahmani now lives and practices law in Tel Aviv.

In his concluding remarks at the end of the discussion in the Human Rights Council, Bielefeldt acknowledged that "issues like male circumcision are part of freedom of religion."

Statement delivered by Lisa Rahmani [to the United Nations] on behalf of the World Jewish Congress

I speak today on behalf of the World Jewish Congress, an international organization representing more than 100 Jewish communities worldwide. The Word Jewish Congress thanks the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for his learned, thought-provoking and practical report.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right of individuals and communities to manifest their religion or beliefs freely. Ritual slaughter, known as shechita, and the tradition of circumcision, which dates back thousands of years, are cornerstones of Jewish religious practice.

However, today we are witnessing an increasing number of government actions that seek to condemn and ban these religious practices.

Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect, at a time when humanity had not begun to think in terms of animal rights. Quite conveniently, some prefer to ignore the origin of the values they claim to defend.

If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport.

But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter – be it shechita practiced by Jews, or halal practiced by Muslims.

In the same way, it is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons.

Respectfully, we call on the Special Rapporteur to recognize that these practices are forms of religious expression; to recognize that they are not trumped by other values; and to ask him to consider limitations on ritual slaughter and circumcision as violations of freedom of religion in his next report to the Council.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The false and misleading claims in order of appearance:

1. Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect. In reality, many cultures had  – and have  – traditions of humane treatment of animals. Native peoples all over the world have ancient oral traditions of respect for animal life and for respecting nature. The idea that Judaism was the first culture to do this is false and comes from viewing the world through the narrow prism of Orthodox religious dogma that sees the Torah as the first document (so to speak) of the world with everything else being an outgrowth of it. (Another example of this false outlook is the commonly held haredi-Orthodox notion that Hebrew was the first language of the world. It very clearly was not.)

2. If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport. But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter – be it shechita practiced by Jews… Here Rahamani shows her ignorance or her dishonesty. Halakha very clearly states that fish do not need shechita and can be killed in any way that is convenient. Halakha also allows cruelty to animals if that cruelty benefits humans. That is why (in part) that fish can be left to suffocate and die rather than be humanely slaughtered. It is also why the throat-ripping at Agriprocessors kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa was allowed by literally more than a dozen haredi and centrist Orthodox rabbis, and that caused animals immense suffering. Even so, their meat was ruled kosher both before and after the fact. Force-feeding geese is allowed under many understandings of halakha, and kosher fois gras is available to buy. If kosher law is so humane, why is all this so? Lastly, Rahamani uses a cheap debater's trick here. There is no indepependet move to ban ritual slaughter that exists in some vacuum. European countries have in fact taken many steps to ensure humane slaughter and to support animal welfare. They mandate pre-stunning of animals to minimize pain during slaughter. They have instituted animal handling regulations to prevent the abuse of animals awaiting slaughter, and they have instituted other regulations and laws to try to ensure animal welfare elsewhere, as well – for example, laws banning abuse of domestic animals and pets. Regulation of shechita and halal slaughter is not a stand-alone item; it is the most recent part of package that also impacts non-religious slaughter, farming, ranching and the treatment of your neighborhood cat.

3.[I]t is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons. Halakha not only allows, it commands people to break halakha in order to save lives or prevent suffering. Therefore, under halakha, even if circumcision had not been commanded and was not a mitzvah, Jews would be allowed to circumcise their children for medical reasons. Past that, saving a life or protecting life trumps most standard laws and conventions. It is illegal to swim in a certain lake but it is not illegal to jump in to try to save a drowning child; murder is illegal, but it is legal to shoot and kill someone who is threatening you with deadly force. In other words, circumcision for medical reasons performed by trained physicians in a sterile medical environment and following best practices is far different than a mohel  performing the operation in a synagogue or home in a non-sterile environment with no professional backup to help if something goes wrong and no anesthetic given to the baby, not only because of the reason the circumcision is being done but because of the method it is done with.

For the WJC to have allowed such deceitful and illogical testimony to given in the name of the Jewish people to the UN is astounding.

The WJC owes all of us and the UN an apology, and it needs to remove Rahamani from her position immediately.

Lies will not save shechita and circumcision from restrictions or bans.

Comments

[jancsibacsi]

Unbeleivable how stupid the wjc can be, mind boggling.

[Alter Kocker]

Simply disingenuous. Dancing around the truth, because they know their practices will be gone in a few short decades. Brit Mila is an organized assault on a defenseless child. Shechita is cruelty in a situation where the cruelty could be completely reduced if not eliminated. It is the unwillingness to change that the WJC is defending. The acts described herein are at any time indefensible.

[Allan]

I agree Jancsi. Actually, I don’t recall ever voting for these guys to represent me before the UN or anywhere else – in fact I don’t even know who they are. It takes some kind of chutzpa to appoint yourselves spokesmen for the Jews of the entire WORLD. By the way, what are the chances that these “kosher advocates” actually keep kosher themselves ?

Shmarya – excellent rebuttal to the WJC’s bogus arguments.

[asnotsa]

ONE thing I agree is that sport hunting, and particularly trophy hunting of elephants, lions, giraffe, then posing with the corpses, should be outlawed. That doens't excuse, however, shchita from coming under scrutiny.

[S M L]

This woman hasn't a clue. This statement:

"[I]t is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons. "

shows no willingness to be at all honest.

Amputation of a leg is mutilation unless done for medical reasons such as gangrene in which case it's looked at differently. What's the point, lady? Whether or not circumcision is considered mutilation when done ritually it would nonetheless be considered necessary when done for, say, obstruction of the meatus or for infection.

[Jeff]

"they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks"

You mean the way Israel banned it, then un-banned it?

[Hanna Rheinz]

"Yes, judaism Tza`ar ba`alei chayim is the first animal right`s
position in history! Up to this day, Judaism`s ethics is a most
progressive and visionary ethic including nature and all its beings.
Due to industrialized husbandry and slaughtering methods, the traditional
laws concerning non cruel and respectful slaughtering procedures are
not put into practice any longer. No, shehita is not what it was meant to
be and thereby does not any longer fulfill the halachic law not to exert pain and distress in animals. The use of modern, reversible stunning techniques is compatible with tza`ar ba`alei chayim. Reforms are part of Jewish history and had very often been put forward in the
past. Please allow me a comparison. Around the last millenium change, a
rabbi of Ashkenaz called Me`Or ha Gola who lived in the city of Mayence
introduced the prohibition of polygamy to the jewish communities
worldwide. This reform initiated by an ashkenas rabbi provoked the
abolition of polygamy on a worldwide scale. Would this be possible
today? Or would it provoke an uproar that Rav Gershom ben Yehuda of
Mayence would endanger religious freedom and harm judaism? It is beyond
any doubt, that today nobody, including the rabbis, would consider
polygamy to be a an essential and unchangeably important part of
judaism and jewish religious freedom! Slaughtering today is a cruel business.
Many rabbis are aware of the fact that shehita in industrialized
slaughterhouses does not fulfill halachic standards but is extremely
painful for the animals. Pain, distress and panic is what traditional
shehita prohibits! The refusal to adapt to this new situation and act
according to tza`ar ba`alei chayim is a direct outcome of the fight
against antisemitism! Jewish organizations and the Rabbis protect a
position of power and influence and prefer not to confront the facts
inside the slaughterhouses, even though this segment of the meat
industry shows - due to the increase of halal slaughtering - an
enormous growth on a worldwide scale. It is a deplorable fact, that the concern for the animals is of minor, is of no importance. Many rabbis
know that shehita in today`s conditions is extremely painful and not
lefi ha halacha! But they prefer not to react due to political interests
and the importance to fight against antisemitism which abused shehita
(and still does). To lower one`s own ethical standards is a sign of
weakness and is harmful to judaism itself. It is time to reconsider the jewish ethical standards, not to harm and not to exert unnecessary pain to animals! If the preservation of power is considered to be more important than the suffering of sentient beings, judaism will lose a
central ethical value. And will do so by own free will, thereby fulfilling what the enemies of am Jisroel had in mind. Destroy judaism on all levels, body and soul. Judaism might lose its spirit, its
jewish empathic soul and heart towards the other sentient beings inside
the traditional dyad of creation as described in the Thora: adam u
behema. Human and animal beings. Today, it is not the freedom of
religion which is in danger, but judaism`s spirit itself. Thereby
fulfilling the goals of judaism`s worst enemies. It is time to stand up against industrialized animal exploitation and cruelty in animal factories and slaughterhouses!"
Dr. Hanna Rheinz