The Starting at Home Principle: On Ritual Animal Slaughter, Male Circumcision and Proportionality

Abstract

Abstract— Many argue that ritual animal slaughter and male circumcision should be banned using a balancing and proportionality approach: freedom of religion considerations are outweighed by the infringements of the rights of children and animals. I argue that the proportionality approach to the problem is misguided and suggest applying an approach that I term starting at home: members of a minority have a right not to be subjected to more stringent moral criteria than the majority is willing to subject itself to. There is, in other words, a right given to the minority that the majority start with its own moral rectitude before taking care of the minority’s. Applying this principle to ritual animal slaughter and male circumcision, I argue that banning these practices in Europe is wrong.

Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: current controversies in UK law and medical ethics

“…We propose that, going forward, both in law and medical ethics, children of all sexes and genders will have to be treated equally with respect to parental decision-making about medically unnecessary genital surgeries. Either "minor" forms of FGM will have to be allowed, as prominent defenders of child NPC are increasingly proposing, 4,5,25,[169][170][171][172][173][174] or NPC of minors will have to be brought into closer alignment with existing standards applied to other practices. 175 It is our view that a consistent application of widely-accepted medical ethics, safeguarding, legal and human rights principles should result in equal protection for all children from all forms of non-therapeutic genital cutting practices to which they cannot consent.…”

Why disregarding hypocritical blame is appropriate

“…A good illustration lies in the laws (or bill proposals) against so‐called religious (Jewish or Muslim) slaughter in some European countries. If such laws had been motivated by a true concern for animals, there would have been similar prohibitions on other forms of “inhumane” slaughter, but, as shown by Porat (2021), when these forms are unrelated to Judaism or Islam, they are licensed. What I mainly have in mind is home and small farm slaughter that is often performed the same way as ritual animal slaughter (using a knife), and which is not banned, supervised or regulated in any way.…”

“…What I mainly have in mind is home and small farm slaughter that is often performed the same way as ritual animal slaughter (using a knife), and which is not banned, supervised or regulated in any way. In Porat's estimation, “the number of animals slaughtered by this majority‐practice in European countries substantially exceeds the number of animals slaughtered by minority ritual animal slaughter forbidden or campaigned to be forbidden in the same countries” (2021, p. 46). Faced with these facts, one would have to be extremely charitable to assume that calls to ban religious slaughter are motivated, for the most part, by a genuine care about animal suffering.…”