Slakt i Guds namn - En kritisk granskning av djurskyddslagens förenlighet med artikel 9 EKMR
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Religiös slakt påbjuds inom både islam och judendom. Gemensamt för dessa metoder är att djuret ofta slaktas utan föregående bedövning. Denna slakt är i Sverige förbjuden enligt 14 § djurskyddslagen (1988:534). Samtidigt stadgas i artikel 9 EKMR rätt till religionsfrihet. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda huruvida 14 § djurskyddslagen (1988:534) kan anses vara förenlig med rätten till religionsfrihet i artikel 9 EKMR. Fokus för uppsatsen kommer att läggas på den religiösa slakt som förekommer inom judendom och islam. Genom rättsdogmatisk metod skall utredas vad rätten till religionsfrihet i artikel 9 EKMR inbegriper samt under vilka förutsättningar denna rätt kan begränsas.
Gällande artikel 9 har Europadomstolen i tidigare praxis... (More) - Religiös slakt påbjuds inom både islam och judendom. Gemensamt för dessa metoder är att djuret ofta slaktas utan föregående bedövning. Denna slakt är i Sverige förbjuden enligt 14 § djurskyddslagen (1988:534). Samtidigt stadgas i artikel 9 EKMR rätt till religionsfrihet. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda huruvida 14 § djurskyddslagen (1988:534) kan anses vara förenlig med rätten till religionsfrihet i artikel 9 EKMR. Fokus för uppsatsen kommer att läggas på den religiösa slakt som förekommer inom judendom och islam. Genom rättsdogmatisk metod skall utredas vad rätten till religionsfrihet i artikel 9 EKMR inbegriper samt under vilka förutsättningar denna rätt kan begränsas.
Gällande artikel 9 har Europadomstolen i tidigare praxis diskuterat såväl innebörden av begreppet ”religion” som omfattningen av den konventionsstadgade religionsfriheten. Artikel 9 innefattar dels rätten att inneha en religion, dels rätten att utöva religion. Rätten att utöva religion är relativ och därmed möjlig att begränsa enligt artikel 9.2.
Europadomstolen uttalade i målet Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France att följande av dietära regler, påbjudna av religion eller annan filosofisk övertygelse, inbegrips av begreppet ”utöva” i artikel 9.1 EKMR. Trots oförmåga att själv utföra religiös slakt kan emellertid tillgång till kött slaktat enligt religiösa regler medföra att religionsfriheten inte anses begränsad. Vidare förnekade Domstolen att artikel 9 inbegriper en rätt att personligen utföra religiös slakt.
Mot bakgrund av Europadomstolens bedömning i det franska målet kan tänkas att Sveriges avsaknad av importförbud av kött, slaktat utan föregående bedövning, medför att 14 § djurskyddslagen (1988:534) inte anses utgöra en begränsning av religionsfriheten i artikel 9 EKMR.
Målet är dock till dags dato det enda på området. Den samhälleliga synen på djur har ändrats – från att blott ha betraktats som egendom ses djur idag som kännande varelser. Mot bakgrund av Europakonventionens funktion som ett levande instrument samt ett i framtiden eventuellt utökat djurskydd till följd av en förändrad syn på djur kan tänkas att utfallet blir ett annat i framtida avgöranden.
Att grundläggande religiösa traditioner är kriminaliserade i svensk lag kan anses problematiskt, inte minst med anledning av religionsfrihetens betydelse för ett demokratiskt samhälle. Slakt i religionsfrihetens namn är ett aktuellt område vars gränser förhoppningsvis närmare klargörs i framtiden. (Less) - Abstract
- Both Judaism and Islam dictate religious slaughter, whereby livestock often is slaughtered without prior stunning. In Sweden, this method of slaughter is prohibited pursuant to section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534). However, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates freedom of religion. The present paper aims to examine whether the Swedish legislation is compatible with Article 9. Focus will be on Jewish and Islamic religious slaughter. Following the legal-dogmatic method, this paper seeks to examine the right to freedom of religion under the Convention – on the one hand, what this freedom entails and, on the other, under what terms a contracting state may justify interference with this freedom.
Previous... (More) - Both Judaism and Islam dictate religious slaughter, whereby livestock often is slaughtered without prior stunning. In Sweden, this method of slaughter is prohibited pursuant to section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534). However, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates freedom of religion. The present paper aims to examine whether the Swedish legislation is compatible with Article 9. Focus will be on Jewish and Islamic religious slaughter. Following the legal-dogmatic method, this paper seeks to examine the right to freedom of religion under the Convention – on the one hand, what this freedom entails and, on the other, under what terms a contracting state may justify interference with this freedom.
Previous case-law of the European Court on Human Rights discusses the meaning of the term “religion” in Article 9 as well as the freedom to religion itself. Article 9 guarantees both the right to hold a belief and the right to manifest that belief. Pursuant to Article 9.2, the right to manifest belief is not absolute and may therefore be subject to restrictions.
In the case of Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France, the Court held that observing dietary rules dictated by a religion is considered a practice protected by the right to manifest one’s religion within the meaning of Article 9. The Court nonetheless noted that the applicant association could obtain eligible meat and further stressed that the right to freedom of religion cannot extend to the right to take part in person in the performance of ritual slaughter. Therefore, the Court argued, there had been no violation of Article 9.
In the light of the Court’s prior ruling in the French case, the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534) may be considered compatible with Article 9 due to the absence of an import ban on meat slaughtered without prior stunning. However, Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France is the only judgment to date on religious slaughter. The European Convention is frequently seen as a living instrument which must be interpreted taking account of present-day conditions. Animals are more so now than before seen as sentient beings as opposed to objects alone. On present trends, there is a possibility of a different outcome in future rulings of the Court.
Freedom of religion is considered one of the foundations of a democratic society. The fact that fundamental religious practices are criminalized is therefore possibly a ground for concern. Religious slaughter taken in conjunction with Article 9 is a highly topical issue and it is of great interest that future rulings of the Court further clarifies the lines of the correlation between these two. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965386
- author
- Zarén, Anna LU
- supervisor
-
- Emma Ahlm LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Rättsvetenskap, Religionsfrihet, Religiös slakt, Djurskydd, European Court of Human Rights, Mänskliga rättigheter, Europakonventionen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965386
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-10 13:47:38
- date last changed
- 2019-03-10 13:47:38
@misc{8965386,
abstract = {{Both Judaism and Islam dictate religious slaughter, whereby livestock often is slaughtered without prior stunning. In Sweden, this method of slaughter is prohibited pursuant to section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534). However, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates freedom of religion. The present paper aims to examine whether the Swedish legislation is compatible with Article 9. Focus will be on Jewish and Islamic religious slaughter. Following the legal-dogmatic method, this paper seeks to examine the right to freedom of religion under the Convention – on the one hand, what this freedom entails and, on the other, under what terms a contracting state may justify interference with this freedom.
Previous case-law of the European Court on Human Rights discusses the meaning of the term “religion” in Article 9 as well as the freedom to religion itself. Article 9 guarantees both the right to hold a belief and the right to manifest that belief. Pursuant to Article 9.2, the right to manifest belief is not absolute and may therefore be subject to restrictions.
In the case of Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France, the Court held that observing dietary rules dictated by a religion is considered a practice protected by the right to manifest one’s religion within the meaning of Article 9. The Court nonetheless noted that the applicant association could obtain eligible meat and further stressed that the right to freedom of religion cannot extend to the right to take part in person in the performance of ritual slaughter. Therefore, the Court argued, there had been no violation of Article 9.
In the light of the Court’s prior ruling in the French case, the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534) may be considered compatible with Article 9 due to the absence of an import ban on meat slaughtered without prior stunning. However, Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France is the only judgment to date on religious slaughter. The European Convention is frequently seen as a living instrument which must be interpreted taking account of present-day conditions. Animals are more so now than before seen as sentient beings as opposed to objects alone. On present trends, there is a possibility of a different outcome in future rulings of the Court.
Freedom of religion is considered one of the foundations of a democratic society. The fact that fundamental religious practices are criminalized is therefore possibly a ground for concern. Religious slaughter taken in conjunction with Article 9 is a highly topical issue and it is of great interest that future rulings of the Court further clarifies the lines of the correlation between these two.}},
author = {{Zarén, Anna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Slakt i Guds namn - En kritisk granskning av djurskyddslagens förenlighet med artikel 9 EKMR}},
year = {{2018}},
}