Religious Freedom and Animal Rights in Australia: A Study

This essay delves into the intricate relationship between animal rights and religious freedom in Australia, focusing on the responsibilities of individuals, communities, and the government. It explores the tensions arising from diverse religious practices, particularly those involving animal slaughter, and their intersection with animal welfare laws and ethical considerations. The paper analyzes the legal frameworks in place, including the Animal Welfare Strategy and relevant acts, while also examining the influence of international declarations like the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare. It critically evaluates the perspectives of various religious groups, such as Islamic, Jewish, and Christian communities, on animal treatment and consumption practices. The essay also examines the religio-economic conflicts and the role of human rights in protecting animals. By referencing academic sources and weekly readings, the essay aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for balancing religious freedom and animal rights in a multicultural society.

Running head: RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
0
RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
Introduction
Animal welfare in many countries has come to be great concern acceptability in the
agricultural system, as well as in the religious faith. In an interpretation of Judeo-Christian era of
Bible, it has said that the protectorate over the animals has meant that every point of
mistreatment may be acceptable, which has altered for the greatest public in such meaning of
each individual has a responsibility or obligation for such animal welfare (Stratton 2016).
Several religious customs and traditions have contained various necessities relating to such
consumption and preparation of food. Especially, the Islamic and Jewish religious traditions have
contained some specific requirements in accordance with the consumption by way of
slaughtering some specific animals. According to their views, it has done for their religious
purpose. The Australian Human rights Commission has made a statement that every citizen of
Australia has a right to the freedom of religion. Article 18 of such International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights has referred to such freedom of conscience, thought and religion
(Tomas 2014). However, in the territory of Australia, those animals whose meat has been
intended for such general ingestion or consumption are obligatory by Commonwealth Codes and
Standards. It should be presumed in advance they have been slaughtered. This paper aims to
discuss what type of responsibilities should be taken by the communities, individuals, as well as
governments to mitigate such tension between religious freedom and rights of animals in
Australia including multi-species and religious diversity.

2RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
Discussion
Several cultural, social, and legal questions have been associated with such rule and
regulations of the religious procedural slaughter of any animal within the territory of Australia.
Australia also transfers a major amount of sheep and beef meat to various Muslim nations for
slaughtering in accordance with halal processes. According to Animals Australia, almost 22
million lambs or sheep have been transferred to Kuwait alone over the past two decades. There
are 13 Exports of sheep and beef have sustained to develop all over the year 2010 by the
Australian producers contributing prosperous Islamic nations (Halafoff 2016).
In such Islamic tradition all over the country, the meat is to be affirmed as halal. It should
be slaughtered in accordance with some religious rituals. The Qur’an has required Muslims to
put up with by such halal. The term halal means what is legitimated or permitted by the rule of
Islamic rituals or Islamic rules of law. Halal has stood in obstruction or opposite to haram, which
has been forbidden by the Islamic rules. In the Quran, it has mentioned that any Muslim should
not eat any flesh, which has not been sanctified in the designation of Allah. It will be sinful for
those Muslims who have been eaten any haram meat. It has instructed in Sura 6:119 of the Quran
that eat anything, which is not made in Allah’s name will be sinning as he has forbidden that
unless and until the persons have been constrained or forced to it (Leroy, and Praet 2017). There
is a rule of making halal to such animal when it has been slaughtering by the slaughter. The
animal has been restrained than a prayer to the almighty Allah has been pronounced into the ear
of the animal. The animal is restrained, and a prayer to Allah is spoken into the animal’s ear.
Then the throat of that animal has been cut, and the animal has bled to death. There has appeared
a non-consistency agreement on these issues with an outcome that a number of Islamic
professors or scholars have contended on such exercise whereas the others may not support.

3RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
In such Jewish tradition, the animals should be slaughtered in accordance with such
shechita process to produce such kosher meat. The term Shechita has been given by the practice
of Jewish religion to slaughter animals, as well as poultry, in such manner, which has rendered
meat ritually and then it will fit for such consumption and eating (Bruce 2019). This process of
slaughter has involved a proficient worker. The proficient or trained worker is called shochet. He
has used a very sharped knife for cutting the oesophagus, trachea, jugular vein and carotid
arteries of an un-surprised, fully conscious or acquaint animal, which is formerly exsanguinated.
The innate animal should be strong and healthy before such slaughter. It should be slaughtered
by a proficient and trained Jewish male. He has called a shochet. He must have used a single cut
of a shrilled and sharped knife, which is called a chalef in such Jewish rituals. Therefore, it can
be said that the Jewish in Australia, as well as all over the world, have eaten kosher meat.
In the mainstream of such Nicene Christianity, there has no such restriction of animals,
which should be depended on such kinds of animals that can be consumed. Such Nicene
Christianity is some rules of doctrinal or principles of traditions of the Christian, which has
reflected the Nicene Faith. About such medieval times, it has stated that the slaughtering of
animal has required the draining of the blood of animals. The Christians are believe in the
doctrine of holy spirit, whoch has deserved its own virtual rights (McGrath 2016). It has
something different from the rules of Jewish or Muslim process of animal slaughtering. The
practices of slaughter do not have any specific method or process of slaughter. The Christians in
European counties have practised flexibly both such process of draining the blood, as well as
wringing of the neck of animals for retaining its blood to make it as a valuable or cherished food.
There are several scholars who have believed that the Jewish, as well as the Christian process of
slaughtering, has fulfilled the bleeding condition of such animals in accordance with the Islamic

4RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
procedure. According to Jillian William, the Christian method of slaughtering is almost same as
the other religions procedures (Williams 2017). The perspective of eating animals is the same
aspect to others.
In contrast with this statement, such an orthodox method of Shechitah and the Jewish
method of kosher has differed from the method of halal in Islamic method. They have believed
that it should require oesophagus, sever trachea, and such jugular manners, as this technique is
supposed to produce such meat with trifling or negligible suffering or grief to those animals at
the time of cutting their throat. Therefore, it can be said that Christians have eaten blessed meat
of animals.
In the territory of Australia, there are several religions, and their process of slaughtering
the animals for consumption is different. There is various legislation of national animal welfare,
and most of the regulations regarding animal welfare are at the territory, as well as state-level
(Shahdan et al. 2016). The Animal Welfare Strategy in Australia has been developed a
framework to adopt a single model of welfare regulation, which the territory, as well as state
government, should adopt such regulation. In such a consequence, every state has implemented
this framework for the welfare of animals except Western Australia. An Advisory Committee
associated with such Strategy has been dispersed, as well as the accountability for additional
increasing the Approach has been tendered in excess to the territories, states and national finance
for such animal welfare reserved. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 of the New
South Wales has prohibited any cruelty to the animals. It has created a duty of care to the users
of animals. These protections have covered crustaceans, as well as vertebrates. It has provided
for such expansion of guidelines concerning diverse species of farmhouse animals, as well as
codes for a number of species have been done. The Animal Welfare Act 1985, in South Australia

5RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
has prohibited unreasonably, intentionally or irresponsibly instigating an animal to such
unnecessary maltreatment. It has also created a duty of care to the owner of the animal. It has
applied to the vertebrates also but does not apply to fish. Such obligatory ethics on specified
classes of species, sale yards, transport, and slaughter have been incorporated in the Animal
Welfare Regulations 2012. South Australia is such only state, which has started to criminal
assassination cats or dogs for consumption purpose. The Animal Welfare Act 2002, of Western
Australia has also prohibited actions of unkindness or cruelty and initiating any unnecessary
impairment of the animals in that territory, including by relinquishment. In the other territories
such as Victoria, Capital Territory of Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, Queensland have
made several Acts for prohibiting such cruelty to the animals. It has possessed a duty of care of
the owners to those animals, as well as other persons to any animal.
The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) is one of the proposed
agreements of inter-government for recognizing the sentiment of animals, as well as preventing
them from cruelty and reducing suffering. It has also offered for promoting principles on the
benefit of various animals such as companion animals, farm animals, animals for the use of
scientific research, mouthful animals, as well as animals in the reformation. There is a religio-
economic conflict, which has not been restricted between on one to another religion, it has
spread between various religions (Roberts, and Yamane 2015). The UDAW has been proposed
and to be adopted through the United Nations. If it has endorsed by the United Nations, then it
will be a set of rules, which have acknowledged the essentiality of the sentience of the animals,
as well as the human responsibilities in the direction of them. The doctrines have been
considered for encouraging and enabling national administrations to improve and
introduce legislation regarding animal protection and has taken initiatives. The pronouncement

6RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
as of the year 2014 has the upkeep, in belief or principles, of 46 nation-states and departments
from the other 17 additional countries. From such widespread diversity of the UN participant
states, almost more than 2.5 million persons have supported or reinforced to such a public
movement (Garner 2015). However, some persons have argued that such an agreement may not
go so far enough, as well as may not be guaranteed the animal rights as a replacement of
simplifying such animal welfare. From the year 1948, the entrenchment and rise of human rights
in the constitutions of state, as well as in such a global system, which has not been equivalent to
such pervasive and stable recognition of the rights of the animal. The objective of such rights of
animals is to protect them from such violence of human being. The animals have possessed a
right to live in this world peacefully, and no human being should make any cruelty towards them.
There are several religions, which have supported to eat animal fleshes. Many persons have
followed such rules and regulations in this country. It has only differed at the time of
slaughtering such animals; such as the Jewish has followed a process of slaughtering where the
Muslims have done that in another method. It is a challenge to the government to pace with the
religion or should maintain the rights of animals.
Buddhism has possessed one of the reputations to emphasis kindness to the animals, as
well as vegetarianism. It can be assumed as such a normative interrogation regarding how any
Buddhist of this country should delicacy the animals if these people’s actions and motivations
are reliable with Buddhist promises and principles (Wright 2015). In the doctrine of ‘Ahimsa’,
there is a respect for animals in every religion such as in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. In
such Hinduism, animals have contained a soul like humans; therefore, they should be treated as
human, and they have a sentiment like others. Hinduism has taught that such a part of their God

7RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
has resided in all existing belongings, which has formed the atman. Thus, respect and reverence
for animals have been taught to the disciples.
There are several critiques who have supported that all animals of the world should be
allowed to live and not be killed in the hand of human beings. However, some critiques have said
that God has created those animals for human. Therefore, such human beings have eaten those
animals, and then there is no violation of rights to the animals.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that the governments, communities and individuals have
possessed a duty to mitigate any tension between the religious freedoms of Australians and the
rights of the animals. Every religion has contained different types of opinions on the rights of
animals. Several religious customs and traditions have contained various necessities relating to
such consumption and preparation of food. It can be said that there are morals on the procedure
of slaughtering, and it has varied one religion to another. The state, as well as territory
governments, have made several rules and regulations to reduce cruelty to the animals. The
individuals, as well as communities, should follow such regulations and maintain harmony
among all religions as well.

8RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
References
Bruce, A., 2019. Responsible Regulation of the Religious Slaughter of Animals. In dA Derecho
Animal: Forum of Animal Law Studies Link:
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/da/da_a2019v10n2/da_a2019v10n2p19.pdf pg no: 21
Halafoff, A., 2016. Governance and Religious Diversity in Australia: Multifaith relations and
religious instruction in the State of Victoria. In The Politics and Practice of Religious
Diversity (pp. 101-117). Routledge.
Leroy, F. and Praet, I., 2017. Animal killing and postdomestic meat production. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(1), pp.67-86.
McGrath, A.E., 2016. Christian theology: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons. Link:
http://pszich.uw.hu/egyhazismeret/ct_mcgrath_text.pdf pg. 279
Roberts, K.A. and Yamane, D., 2015. Religion in sociological perspective. Sage Publications.
Garner, R., 2015. Environmental politics, animal rights and ecological justice.
In Sustainability (pp. 65). Routledge.
Shahdan, I.A., Regenstein, J.M., Shahabuddin, A.S.M. and Rahman, M.T., 2016. Developing
control points for halal slaughtering of poultry. Poultry science, 95(7), pp.1680-1692.
Stratton, J., 2016. Whiteness, morality and Christianity in Australia. Journal of Intercultural
Studies, 37(1), pp.17-32.
The Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA)
The Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW)

9RELIGION, RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE
Tomas, S., 2014. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Link:
http://rmozone.com/snapshots/2016/05/docs/CCPR_C_110_D_2155_2012-02.pdf
Williams, J., 2017. Food and Religious Identities in Spain, 1400-1600. Taylor & Francis. Pg 59-
87.
Wright, L., 2015. The vegan studies project: Food, animals, and gender in the age of terror.
University of Georgia Press. Pg. 4