|
UPDATE
On Friday, August 21, 2009, Judge Bruce Weiss
refused to throw out the state’s request to
dismiss Pasado’s unique legal action to address
inhumane slaughter. Read what happened in court
in the following news coverage:
Religion Clause
|
Seattle Examiner
NBC Network Affiliate
KING5 |
HeraldNet
“It’s great news,” Adam (our attorney), called to tell us. “The hearing went on for a good two hours and, after hearing everything presented,
(the judge) decided not to throw the case out. He said it warranted his time to think more closely about the arguments. This is good news.”
It isn’t often that a courtroom hears a case brought forward to defend the animals who are sent to slaughter. And when the “little guy” (Pasado’s and the animals) is up against the likes of the State of Washington Attorney General’s Office, it’s downright startling. “The judge said that he needed until October to think through the details,” Adam told us.
He was pleased. We could hear it in his voice.
August 2009
Honorable Judge Bruce Weiss of Snohomish County Superior Court will decide several motions in the case of Pasado’s Safe Haven
et al. v. State of Washington et al.
This suit determines several important motions. First, whether Pasado's has the standing to bring this suit. Second, the court may consider whether Washington’s Humane Slaughter Act (“WHSA”) violates Washington’s Establishment Clause and Privileges & Immunities Clause as well as the United States Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments. WHSA is taking a devil-may-care approach to the preparation, handling, and slaughter of livestock for any “ritual” (or religious) purpose, while exposing secular slaughterers to criminal liability.
As drafted, the WHSA appears to condone any form of animal cruelty in the ritual slaughter process. This holds true even if the ritual is performed by an adherent to a “religion” comprised of one person, or a Satanist who believes in torturing animals. Atrocious conduct appears to be condoned, so long as it is in accordance with the ritual requirements of a religious faith. RCW 16.50.150 states: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, ritual slaughter and the handling or other preparation of livestock for ritual slaughter is defined as humane.”
The WHSA exposes secular slaughterers of livestock to criminal prosecution for engaging in precisely the same acts as a religious slaughterer. The distinction? If the slaughterer used a method “in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith.” Many religions, like Judaism, require that the slaughterer (or shochet) be “religiously qualified” as a pious Jew. 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.
But for the animals, it matters not whether the person slicing her throat is a Jew, Christian, agnostic, or Hindu. It is atrocious all the same. To give religion a "free pass" while persecuting nonbelievers turns Washington into a theocracy - at the expense of the humane treatment of animals.
In the Name of "Tradition"
June 2009
Traditions are important, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that all of them are right.
It was once acceptable to beat a wife. Children
once died on sweatshop floors.
Suffering has painted our past, but over time, society said “no more.” But when
God provides the excuse to exact untold pain, the past is
brought to the present.
Pasado’s Safe
Haven hopes to change that – and right a wrong that has been accepted for ages.
Pasado’s filed suit against the State of Washington and the Washington Department of
Agriculture. The suit seeks to eliminate the provision in the state humane slaughter act that permits
religiously-motivated animal cruelty. The State responded to the suit by raising several defenses.
They stated that Pasado’s had no “standing” to bring this suit, that the matter wasn't ready for
judicial review, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.
On June 1st, Pasado’s
filed a motion asking the court to eliminate those defenses so that the matter of ritual slaughter
could be decided by a judge. It is believed that this is the first challenge to the state “humane” slaughter
law since its enactment more than 40 years ago.
The motion is scheduled to be heard by Judge Bruce Weiss of
Snohomish County Superior Court at the end of
June or early July. Stay tuned for the exact date.
April 2009
Pasado’s Safe Haven Files Lawsuit;
Challenges Religious Slaughter Exemptions
Under Washington’s Humane Slaughter Statute
The term “humane slaughter” may seem like an oxymoron, but it’s a legal term defined in most states
and federal law. In Washington State, you find this term used under
Chapter 16.50 in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), in reference to the humane slaughter of livestock, defined as cattle, calves, sheep, swine,
horses, mules and goats.
One of the stated goals of this RCW is to prevent the
needless suffering of animals
during slaughter. However, not all animals receive the same level of protection under RCW 16.50.
The legal requirement for a swift and humane death is not necessarily afforded to the thousands of animals
slaughtered according to “ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith.” This lawsuit
seeks to redress this double-standard and extend existing non-religious humane slaughter methods to all livestock.
To understand how the law fails to protect animals subject to ritual slaughter methods, it’s important to know
more about the law itself.
The RCW spells out two slaughter methods.
One is for non-ritual slaughter and one for ritual slaughter.
You can read more about the two methods at the links below:
non-ritual statute
RCW 16.52.110(3)(a)
ritual statute
RCW 16.52.110(3)(b)
This lawsuit seeks to establish that all livestock are deserving of compassion and a humane death using sound
constitutional arguments. The special carve out law for religious practices fails the rational basis test of
both the federal equal protection and state privileges and immunities clauses. From the animal’s standpoint, it
does not matter whether the person inflicting the killing stroke is Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist.
Primarily, Jews and Muslims partake in ritual slaughter. Thus, from the standpoint of an agnostic, atheist, non-Jew,
or non-Muslim believer whose faith does not impose ritual requirements for slaughter, the law in essence gives
Jews and Muslims immunity from prosecution not enjoyed by anyone else. In so doing, the law violates Washington’s
religious establishment clause.
This lawsuit is about compassion toward animals, not disparaging the religious views of Jews, Muslims, and others
who may be attempting to comply with the ritual requirements of their faith. Indeed, core religious tenets of the
Jewish and Muslim faith support compassion to animals that is arguably not served by this “humane slaughter” law.
People of conscience, from both religious and philosophical perspectives, can all agree that slaughtered animals
should not be subjected to unnecessary torture, pain, and suffering.
It is in this spirit that the Pasado’s suit is brought. Pasado’s counsel,
Adam Karp, is himself Jewish.
Help us continue to be the
voice for the animals!
(don't forget
to ask your employer
to match your donation)
|
|
|
