An Appeal to British Jews O NE of the greatest services
which the Jews have rendered to mankind is the high standard of humane Conduct which they have inculcated. Christianity itself is of • Jewish origin, and the ideal of mercy is deeply embedded in the ancient Jewish law, which not only provided for " the fatherless, the widow and the stranger," but distinctly recognized the possession of rights by the lower animals. Thus, Israelites were forbidden to " muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and animals were to enjoy the Sabbath no less than their masters, " that thine ox and thine ass may rest and be refreshed." This characteristic of the Jewish law is congruent with the marked kindliness of members of that race.
It is therefore with confidence that we suggest to British Jews to take the lead in a matter which is arousing concern in the mind of the public : we refer to the exceptionable practices which are still associated with the slaughter of animals for food. The position of the Jewish community in this connexion is pivotal, not only because their religion attaches particular significance to it, but also because some three-quarters of the meat killed in London is killed by the Jewish method. In one important respect Jews have already set an excellent example, for no unlicensed slaughtermen are employed by them, and no "shochet " is licensed until he has undergone elaborate training and is expert in the practice of certain rules which have a humane as well as a hygienic purpose. The principle that only competent persons should be permitted to kill is such a good one that the failure to adopt it is discreditable to Gentiles.
Cruelty is, however, involved in the current methods by which animals slaughtered by the Jewish method are cast into the position requisite for the work of the f‘ shochet." It is useless for apologists to make light of the cruelty in question, for the facts are so well attested and, in fact, notorious, that apologetics of this nature carry no conviction. Professor E. H. Starling and Sir Michael Foster (two distinguished physiologists who investigated the matter on behalf of the Admiralty in 1904) condemned what they saw in unequivocal terms. Amongst other things, they stated that " in some cases, at least, one of the men introduced his fingers between the eyeball and upper eyelid, and dragged upon the upper eyelid in Order to force the head back. The process of throwing *as often violent, and when the carcase was skinned large superficial bruises were in some cases seen."
Professor F. T. G. Hobday, who is now Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, wrote as follows in a zecent 'letter to the Jewish Graphic " No veterinary surgeon would ever dream of casting a bullock or cow for operation by the crude and cruel method in vogue in a Jewish slaughterhouse. On ' one occasion, twice in one day, I saw horns broken off, and the piteous expression in the 'eyes, at the moment when the head was forced back by the crowbar, of some of the cattle I have seen killed in this way haunts me still." We are aware that Professor Leonard Hill and Sir William Bayliss have been quoted in support of the view that no cruelty is involved, but it seems clear that these physiologists must have used the word " cruelty " in a sense different from that understood by laymen and by some of their fellow- scientists.
The method of casting is not prescribed by the Jewish law : it varies from one slaughterhouse to another, and the work is commonly carried out by Gentiles. The responsibility for the use of cruel methods when humane methods are available rests, therefore, upon Jews, but not upon the Jewish religion.
The suffering involved can be entirely avoided by the use of the Weinberg Casting Pen, a description and appreciation of which will be found in the current number of the Veterinary Journal. We understand that the inventor's motive is humanitarian rather than com- mercial, and that he will be satisfied with a very modest return on his expenditure of money and labour ; but we have no definite information on this point. In any event, Section 1 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1919, would provide a sufficient safeguard against any abusive exploitation of his monopoly.
The inventor is an orthodox Jew, a tailor of Leeds. With funds obtained by selling his furniture and by borrowing from sympathizers, he was able to construct a working model and to demonstrate it successfully in Leeds so long ago as June, 1924. With scanty encouragement from the Board of Schechita he brought the machine to London and in November, 1924, he gave a further successful demonstration in a small slaughter- house lent by a kindly butcher, Mr. Austen, of Brixton. Tedious negotiations with the Board followed, but late in December, 1925, the machine was installed in Islington abattoir for extensive trial under its auspices. It remained there for over twelve months, and during that period only seven animals were passed through it, in spite of the persistent efforts of the inventor to obtain the trial which had been promised. Eventually, having attracted the attention of Professor Hobday and other eminent veterinary surgeons, and of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the machine was removed in January of this year, and further successful demonstrations were given on Mr. Austen's premises in March and July. Subsequently the Board again under- took to give it a trial : it was dismantled and the parts were taken once more to Islington abattoir, where they have remained up to the present time. A policy of obstruction' has been adopted by the Slaughtermen's Union and by the Wholesale Carcase Butchers' Association, and each of the parties to these proceedings seeks to disclaim responsibility for their. No less than 80 per cent. of the meat killed at Islington is Jewish meat, and the Board of Schechita could practically close the market if it chose to do so. The ultimate responsibility therefore rests upon the Board, and we would ask the Jewish community to consider whether they have been worthily served by this body.
The matter could be argued on a low plane. Wherever humane slaughtering is enforced in England, Jews enjoy certain privileges and exemptions whose continuance they particularly desire. Public opinion is arising to demand a thoroughgoing reform of the British slaughter- house system from top to bottom, and if Jewish privileges are not to be swept away, as they were in Switzerland, when the gathering storm bursts, those privileges must not be wedded to indefensible methods of casting. We prefer, however, to put the case on a higher level, and to rest it upon the religious and ethical mission which Jews claim for their race. If they will put their slaughterhouse in order, they will not only rid their religion of an accretion most serviceable to its enemies, but they will hasten the impending reform of Gentile slaughtering. We appeal to them to remove the blot from their own scutcheon, and in so doing to set a bright example to the nation whose citizens they have become.
Previous page
