Jewry of England Intervenes Against Schechita Prohibition in Norway

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Jewish Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association, acting in behalf of the Jewish communities of the British Empire, lent its support to the fight of the Jewish community of Norway against the pending anti-shechita legislation in that country.

The action was taken in a memorandum addressed by the Committee to the Agricultural Commission of the Norwegian Storthing, which has now before it a proposal for legislation in respect to the slaughtering of cattle for food.

Reports received here states that the anti-shechita movement in Norway was given impetus by the recent publication in the Norwegian press of an article of a man who decribed himself as a Liberal Jew.

This article, in which the shechita was described was attacked as cruel, was used by the sponsors of the anti-shechita legislation.

The memorandum of the Joint Foreign Committee, signed by O. E. D’Avigdor Goldsmid, president of the Board of Jewish Deputies; Lord Rothschild, vice-president; L. G. Montefiore, president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, and Lord Swaythling, council of the Ango-Jewish Association, declared:

“In view of the Draft Law on the slaughter of cattle which is now pending before the Agricultural Commission of the Norwegian Storthing, and the effect of which must be to prohibit the Jewish method of slaughter within the jurisdiction of the Norwegian State the undersigned, representing the Jewish communities of the British Empire and duly authorized by them, beg respectfully to submit to the aforesaid Agricultural Commission the following statement of their views on the grave scientific and political issues raised by the contemplated legislation.

“At the outset, the undersigned wish to disclaim any intention of interfering in the internal affairs of the Norwegian State. It is, indeed, only because the Bill referred to deals with a question which closely affects Jewish interests outside Norway that they venture to approach the Agricultural Commission of the Storthing. The Jewish method of slaughtering cattle for food cannot be a mere matter of local municipal administration, and it is not so regarded in any country. The Jewish law regulating the method consititutes a solemn religious obligation, and its observance is a case of conscience with orthodox Jews all over the world. Hence an attack on it in any one country cannot but be regarded as an attack on Judaism at large, and it is for that reason that foreign Jewish communities have been so seriously alarmed by the contemplated action of the Norwegian Parliament.

“The undersigned are informed that the sponsors for the Bill in question base their action on two propositions:

(a) That the Jewish method of slaughter (Shechita) has no religious significance; that it is not binding on the consciences of Jews; and that it is anobsolete supersitition confined to Eastern Europeans of the Mosaic faith, and is no longer observed by Western Jews;

(b) That the Jewish method of slaughter is cruel and inhuman; or that, at least, it inflicts unnecessary suffering on the animals to which it is applied.

“The first of these allegations is put forward without reference to any competent authority, and it is sufficiently answered by the declaration of the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the Jews of the British Empire and his Ecclesiastical Assessors, which is forwarded with this memorandum.

“With regard to the second proposition, if there were the slightest foundation for it the Jews would not now be contesting the Bill, and certainly would not seek an immunity for their method on the ground that it is a religious obligation. They have always readily recognized that even religious laws must be vindicated on their merits, and hitherto this vindication in the case of the Jewish method of slaughtering cattle has been generally held to be complete. The overwhelming testimony of scientific authorities in all the leading countries of Europe and America has established the humanity of the Jewish method, and even its superiority in certain respects over the non-Jewish methods in common use.

“In this connection the experience of Great Britain is instructive. In this country the merits of the Jewish method were carefully investigated by a Government Committee, with the assistance of high scientific authorities, before the present legislation on the subject was framed. The result was the adoption by the Ministry of Health of model by-laws, for use by local authorities, in which the Jewish method was sanetioned. The following is the text of the by-law dealing with this subject: ‘A person shall not, in a slaughterhouse, proceed to slaughter any bull, ox, cow, heifer, steer, calf or pig, until the same shall have been effectually stunned, provided that this by-law shall not he deemed to apply to any member of the Jewish faith, duly licensed by the Chief Rabbi as a slaughterer, when engaged in the slaughtering of cattle intended for the food of Jews according to the Jewish method of slaughtering, if no unnceessary suffering is inflicted.’

“It will be observed that the Jewish method is not only sanctioned by this by-law on its merits, but it is prescribed as a valid alternative for Jews to the ‘stunning’ process which the Norwgian Bill seeks to make universal. So far this by-law had been applied in over one hundred areas in England, and nowhere has it given rise to complaint.

“On these grounds the undersigned venture to submit to the Agricultural Commission that, so far as the proposed legislation of the Slorthing is based on considerations of humanity and public morals, it has no sufficient justification, and that its only effect must be to inflict suffering and religious disability on a loyal and inoffensive religious minority. This asuredly is as remote from the intentions of the Norwegian people as it must be repugnant to their traditions of democracy and religious toleration.

“There is one further point to which the undersigned desire very respectfully to draw the attention of the Agricultural Commission. The ‘free exercise, whether public or private, of any religion whose practices are not meonsistent with public order or public morals’ is one of the main stipulations of the Minorities Treaties, which have been placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The Jewish method of slaughtering cattle, which, as is shown by the accompanying declaration of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Authorines of this country, is a religious practice not inconsistent with public order or public morals, clearly comes within this stipulation, and therefore, could not be prohibited by any State bound to the League of Nations by a Minorities Treaty. It is, of course, not pretended that Norway is under any treaty obligation of this kind, for the undersigned are well aware that she is not one of the States which have been required to sign Minorities Treaties. But has she no moral obligation in the matter? At the Third Assembly of the League of Nations, which met at Geneva in 1922, certain rules of procedure under the Minorities Treaties were adopted. Among them was the following: ‘The Assembly expresses the hope that the States which are not bound by any legal obligations to the League with respect to Minorities will nevertheless observe in the treatment of their own racial, religious or linguistic Minorities at least as high a standard of justice and tolcration as is required by any of the Treaties and by the regular action of the Council.’

“This was adopted by all the States represented in the Assembly, including Norway. Indeed, in the Sixth Commission, which prepared these rules for submission to the Assembly, Dr. Fridljof Nansen, the eminent representative of Norway, on September 12, spoke strongly in their support. In these circumstances, the undersigned venture to suggest that Norway is morally bound to adapt her legislation in regard to her Jewish minority to the standard of justice and toleration required by the Minorities Treaties.

“In illustration and support of the foregoing observations, the undersigned have the honor to forward herewith a small collection of publications dealing with the Jewish method of slaughtering cattle. These include the opinions of British and foreign experts, and the texts of the by-laws adopted by the British Ministry of Health and the London County Council.”

To the memorandum was attached a statement by Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz, and the Dayanim, Elsher Feldman. S. I. Hillman, Harris M. Lazarus, and L. Mendelsohn, Ecclesiastical Assessors to the Chief Rabbi and S. Gaguine, Ecclesiastical Authority of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation. The statement read:

“Shechita is prescribed by the Divine Law. It has been universally observed by Jews throughout the ages; and is to this day religiously observed by the overwhelming majority of the Jews of the world. The rules and rites governing this sacred ordinance have come down to us from time immemorial, and, amongst other purposes, they are intended to ensure a swift and painless death to the animal. Any other method than the prescribed Shechita renders the meat ritually unfit for Jewish consuption. Civil regulations that would interfere with this hallowed practice would, therefore, inflict cruel hardship upon law-abiding citizens; and, by violating their freedom of conscience, constitute a grievous religious persecution.”

Police Commissioner Warren has approved eleven requests for parade permits for the Fourth of July celebrations, it was made known yesterday. The only request refused was that of the Ku Klux Klan of Queens, which the Commissioner refused two weeks ago on the ground he had reason to believe it would incite disorier.