hello, I want u to do the Executive Summary and the Background about Religious turbulence in India. total 3 pages with max 800 words without the citation page and I put also an example about the white paper project but I just want u to do the Executive Summary and the Background.Writing a White Paper: A Short Overview
(Taken Mainly from UNC Chapel Hill’s Writing Center)
WHAT IS A “WHITE PAPER”?
A white paper presents a concise summary of information that can help readers understand,
and likely make decisions about, government policies. White papers may give objective
summaries of relevant research, suggest possible policy options, or go even further and argue
for particular courses of action.
WHAT DOES A “WHITE PAPER” INCLUDE?
A good title quickly communicates the contents of the white paper in a memorable way.
This section is often one to two paragraphs long; it includes an overview of the problem, why
current approaches need to be changed, and the proposed policy action.
This section provides the background information required for the audience to grasp the
problem and, ultimately, the solution. The content may be detailed and technical or broad and
high-level. The content depends on the reader and the problem.
Policy Alternatives & Recommendation
This section discusses current policy approaches and why they are inadequate to solve the
problem; once these alternatives have been examined, then the policy solution being
recommended by the white paper is presented and defended.
This section summarizes the white paper’s major findings, including its policy
All sources used to develop the white paper must be collected and cited in this section. It adds
validity to the document. It also gives the reader content for further research.
WHAT ARE SOME ONLINE RESOURCES FOR WRITING “WHITE PAPERS”?
1) “Policy Briefs” – Writing Center @ UNC Chapel Hill – https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-andtools/policy-briefs/
2) “Policy Writing Overview” – Ford School of Public Policy @ University of Michigan –
FSEM 100 Religion & Human Rights in a Pluralistic World
Judy and John B. Stetson
22 October 2019
Banning Kosher Slaughter in Europe
In an attempt to protect animals from cruelty in European countries, animal rights
activists argue against Kosher and Halal methods of slaughtering animals for consumption.
These animal rights activists believe that the Kosher and Halal slaughtering methods are
unethical. With the advances in today’s society, there is technology available to reduce the
suffering of animals. One example of this technology is pre-cut stunning. After World War II (in
1998), the European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter ruled that animals
had to be stunned before they were slaughtered. In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority
said that pre-cut stunning was better for the welfare of the animals (Feder). Since Kosher and
Halal slaughter rituals are not compensated by this regulation, these cultural practices have been
banned. This has led to an uproar in the European Jewish and Muslim communities due to the
fact that the banning of these practices is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention
regarding the rights to freedom of thought, belief, and religion.
According to Rossella Tercatin’s article in the Jerusalem Post, the Chief Rabbi of
Brussels, Albert Guigui, stated that the Jewish and Muslim people “feel cautiously optimistic,
since Luxembourg judges in the past decided against violation of religious freedom and human
Barnier and Berry 2
rights.” and added that they “will continue to fight resolutely against this decision until it is
annulled.” This is why the only valid solution to this conflict is to allow the practice of this
religion, under the supervision of the law. This would ensure that the issue was not, as Jews
presently fear, fabricated to persecute religious minorities and rather to actually protect the rights
of animals. Additionally, this action would protect the religious freedom of Europeans, as well as
the rights of animals.
While stunning has been widely accepted as the most humane way to slaughter, animal
rights activist Temple Grandin described the Kosher method as being “relatively pain free.” The
Jewish slaughter practice, called Shechita, involves using a sharp knife to cut open an animal’s
trachea and esophagus. This is a quick process intended to kill the animal effectively and limit its
suffering. According to The New York Times article “Belgium Bans Religious Slaughtering
Practices, Drawing Praise and Protest,” slaughter by Muslim Halal and Jewish Kosher rules
require that an animal be in perfect health, implying that the sedation or stunning of the animal
would violate the ritual (Schreuer).
During World War II, all Kosher slaughter was banned in Nazi-occupied Germany, but
the bans were lifted after the war. As of January 2019, however, Shechita is prohibited in 7
European countries and strictly regulated in 13. Below is a table of the regulated and banned
countries with their corresponding Jewish population according to Shira Feder’s Forward article.
This adds up to approximately 718,800 Jews who are unable to practice their religious dietary
needs freely in Europe (Feder).
Barnier and Berry 3
in which Shechita is
in which Shechita is
In most countries where ritual slaughter is banned, pre-cut stunning is required (with the
exception of Iceland that requires sedation). However, the degree to which slaughter is regulated
varies. In most of the regulated countries like France, Spain, Germany, and Lithuania, a permit is
required to practice Shechita. In others such as Greece and Estonia, the compromise of post-cut
stunning has been reached. Austria and Latvia require both post-cut stunning and a permit, while
in Finland, simultaneous stunning is required. Poland has highly regulated slaughter, but has
Barnier and Berry 4
proposed to make Kosher slaughter illegal, and the Netherlands does not allow Kosher meat to
be exported from the country (Feder). While these regulations are restrictive, they are
compromises between animal activists and Jews that still allow Shechita to be practiced.
Many Jews and Muslims that wish to remain in their Kosher and Halal customs will have
to adapt to these bans by moving or purchasing their meats from outside their country (Schreuer).
Even if only the 718,800 Jews resented to this, the economy of Europe would reach an
imbalance. Not to mention that this will likely affect the overall spending of each Jewish
household, as they would be paying more for the same products they have always had.
Humane slaughter should remain a priority of government officials, but the prohibition of
a thousand-year-old religious practice is an infringement on religious freedom. According to
Schreuer’s New York Times article, “…religious minorities in Belgium and other countries fear
that they are the targets of bigotry under the guise of animal protection.” The article also includes
a contradicting statement by Ann De Greef, the director of a Belgian animal rights group known
as the Global Action in the Interest of Animals. In her statement, Greef claims that Muslims and
Jews “want to keep living in the Middle Ages and continue to slaughter without stunning — as
the technique didn’t yet exist back then — without having to answer to the law. Well, I’m sorry,
in Belgium the law is above religion and that will stay like that.” If religion is being completely
disregarded under the law, nothing is stopping religious minorities from seeing this as a display
of bigotry on them.
An effective way to ensure that the voices of both parties are heard would be to
encourage the compromises practiced by most of Europe. The Jews and Muslims deserve their
freedom to practice the religion they have been for thousands of years. This right is clear in
Article 9 of the European Convention which states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of
Barnier and Berry 5
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.” On the other hand, the second
part of Article 9 is in accordance with the animal rights activists and says, “Freedom to manifest
one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Highly
regulated slaughter that is still acceptable to those in the Jewish and Halal dietary restrictions
would allow religious freedom as well as prevent animal cruelty.
Policy Alternatives & Recommendation
Adolf Hitler banning the slaughter of animals in Germany without prior stunning in 1933
led to an intense rabbinic debate on whether observant Jews could eat meat slaughtered with
prior stunning under these circumstances. The rabbis reached a general consensus that prior
stunning was unacceptable, even under the extreme situation of Nazi Germany at the time. Since
then, virtually no rabbinic authorities have found that stunning prior to slaughter is consistent
with Jewish doctrine. Under Islamic law, some authorities reject all forms of stunning prior to
slaughter, while other authorities accept certain types of prior stunning.
Given the sincerely held religious beliefs of observant Jews and many Muslims, requiring
stunning before slaughter clearly implicates international human rights law on freedom of
religion, including the European Convention on Human Rights. There must be other policy
alternatives enforced that do not conflict with traditional Jewish and Muslim practices. Such
policy alternatives may include removing the ban on Shechita completely in European countries,
Barnier and Berry 6
keeping the policy but making an exception for those who are doing it as a religious practice, or
requiring a license to practice these animal slaughtering techniques.
Removing the ban on Shechita completely in European countries may alleviate these
tensions and satisfy both the Jewish people and the Muslims. Simply removing the ban will
allow Jews and Muslims to continue to practice the same slaughtering techniques that they
always have and will allow them to continue to abide by their religious beliefs. On the other
hand, this alternative may lead to people who do not have any religious obligations taking
advantage of this freedom to slaughter animals. It may also upset many concerned animal rights
activists and eventually lead to more tension than before. To avoid this, the ban can be lifted but
the government should still regulate animal slaughtering practices.
The government can also keep the ban while still regulating these practices by making an
exception for those who are doing it as a religious practice and ensuring that only those who are
religiously inclined to practice Shechita techniques are doing so. An example of a European
country successfully practicing this would be Cyprus. According to data by the Library of
Congress, Cyprus generally requires animals to be stunned before slaughter, but an exception is
allowed in the case of animals subject to religious methods of slaughter. The Library of
Congress states that, “Cypriot regulations require an application by a competent religious
authority to the Cyprus Veterinary Services for a special derogation from the standard
requirement.” Cyprus Veterinary Services examine the application to determine if the religious
authority applying for the derogation meets satisfactions to monitor and apply the ritual practice.
If the derogation is granted to the authority, slaughter may be carried out in accordance with the
religious practice. This is an easy way to appease both animal rights activists and the Jewish and
Barnier and Berry 7
While both of these policy alternatives could be effective, requiring a permit to practice
these animal slaughtering techniques would be most efficient. It will allow those who wish to
practice Shechita to do so legally if they obtain a permit while reducing the factor of people
taking advantage of not having a ban policy in place. Austria is the perfect example of a
European country enforcing this policy successfully. In Austria, it is generally prohibited to kill
animals without stunning but a no-stunning permit for ritual slaughter may be obtained if killing
without stunning is necessary according to mandatory religious instructions or prohibitions of a
recognized religious denomination. According to the Library of Congress, the ritual slaughter
must take place in slaughterhouses specially established and authorized by the authorities for this
purpose. The library of congress additionally adds that the permit will only be granted if:
“the ritual slaughter is performed by persons possessing the necessary knowledge and
the ritual slaughter is performed exclusively in the presence of a veterinarian in charge of
slaughtering and meat inspection;
equipment is available to ensure that the animals intended for ritual slaughter can be
brought into the position required for slaughtering as quickly as possible;
the slaughter is performed in a way that the large blood vessels in the throat area are
opened with one single cut;
the animals are effectively stunned immediately after opening of the blood vessels (postcut stunning);
the stunning becomes effective immediately after the cut is performed; and
the animals intended for ritual slaughter are not brought into the required position before
the anesthetist is ready to perform the stunning.”
Barnier and Berry 8
Following Austria’s policy will be most efficient because it will appeal to all parties involved. It
will put animal rights activists slightly more at ease knowing that not everyone can legally
slaughter animals without stunning them first and it will minimize animal cruelty. It will also put
them at ease knowing that the government will only grant people with this right to practice
Shechita if they pass government qualifications and obtain a license, and then follow proper
required techniques. A policy like Austria’s will please Jews and Muslims because it will allow
them to practice animal slaughtering in a way that follows the beliefs of their religion.
After World War II, the European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter
ruled that animals had to be stunned before they were slaughtered and in 2004, the European
Food Safety Authority determined that this was best for the welfare of animals. This decision led
to a huge uproar in the European Jewish and Muslim communities as the banning of these
practices is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention regarding the rights to freedom
of thought, belief, and religion. Slaughter by Muslim Halal and Jewish Kosher rules requires that
an animal be in perfect health so the sedation or stunning of the animal would violate the ritual.
Many see this prohibition of a thousand-year-old religious practice is an infringement on
religious freedom and some even see it as a result of targeted bigotry to these cultural groups.
While animal rights activists determined Kosher and Halal slaughtering methods to be
unethical, it is also unethical to take Jewish and Muslim religious freedoms away. With this
problem comes a few potential solutions. These include removing the ban on Shechita
completely in European countries. While this alternative policy may infuriate animal rights
activists, it will also eliminate the concern of religious freedoms being taken away from Jews and
Muslims. Another alternative policy would be to keep the ban but make an exception for those
Barnier and Berry 9
who are doing it as a religious practice, a policy similar to that of the country Cyprus which
requires an application by a competent religious authority to the Cyprus Veterinary Services for a
special derogation from the standard requirement. If every European country followed this same
policy, it will effectively alleviate a lot of concerns. The final alternative policy suggested would
be to require a license to practice Kosher and Halal animal slaughtering techniques, a method
used by Austria. In Austria, a no-stunning permit for ritual slaughter may be obtained if killing
without stunning is necessary according to mandatory religious instructions or prohibitions of a
recognized religious denomination. To obtain this permit, the religious authority seeking it must
meet many qualifications to ensure that they are in fact doing it to abide by their religious
obligations. This policy would ensure that the issue was not, as Jews presently fear, fabricated to
persecute religious minorities and rather to actually protect the rights of animals since it still
gives religious parties the right to slaughter animals in their particular way if required. It would
also appease animal rights activists since it applies government regulations on animal
slaughtering practices and will reduce animal cruelty.
Barnier and Berry 10
Feder, Shira. “All the European Countries Where Kosher and Halal Meat Production Are Now
Forbidden.” Forward, 7 January 2019, forward.com/food/416983/all-the-europeancountries-where-kosher-and-halal-meat-production-are-now/. Accessed 13 October 2019.
Global Legal Research Directorate. “Legal Restrictions on Religious Slaughter in Europe.” Law
Library of Congress, 1 March 1 2018, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religiousslaughter/europe.php. Accessed 7 October 2019.
Schreuer, Milan. “Belgium Bans Religious Slaughtering Practices, Drawing Praise and Protest.”
The New York Times, 5 January 2019, nytimes.com/2019/01/05/world/europe/belgiumban-jewish-muslim-animal-slaughter.html. Accessed 7 October 2019.
Tercatin, Rossella. “Jewish Leaders Outraged as Belgium’s Shechita Ban Goes into Effect.” The
Jerusalem Post, 2 September 2019, jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-leaders-outraged-asBelgiums-shechita-bans-comes-into-effect-600344. Accessed 13 October 2019.
Purchase answer to see full