by ARNOLD LEESE, M.R.C.V.S.
The Present State of British
Law with reference
to Animal Slaughter for
Food.
THE Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, provides that all animals slaughtered for the food of man shall die by stunning with a mechanically‑operated instrument; but with three important exceptions viz.:—
(1). Pigs, when no electric
power is available, whereby these animals are stunned; without detriment to the
carcase, by means of an electric shock.
(2). Sheep, unless the Local
Authority protects them by providing in its Bye‑laws that they must be
stunned.
(3). All animals killed for the food of Jews or
Mahomedans.
There is no real excuse for
any of these prohibitions, and one of the first acts of a Fascist Government in
Britain would be to abolish them.
The many societies that
exist for the protection of animals from cruelty have had a very long and hard
fight to arrive even at the unsatisfactory stage in which the 1933 Act leaves us; they have had tremendous opposition from the trade, and
the British people have no reason to be proud of their indifference and
inaction in face of the fact that sheep, in particular, have been, and often
still are, subject to a shockingly dirty death at the hands of the butcher.
Nevertheless, the slaughter of cattle has at last been made humane where
Gentile food is concerned.
Why, in a country calling
itself Christian, and with a population Aryan or of Aryan strain, should Jews
and Mahomedans he allowed to kill their cattle by methods less humane than
those we ourselves have adopted?
It is of course necessary
that all animals killed for human food should be thoroughly well bled, and this
is done by cutting the throat, so that the heart itself pumps the blood froth
the animal before it stops beating.
The Aryan or Christian has
decided that his cattle shall be stunned first so that they will not feel the
anguish of the cut and the awful struggle against death which follows it. The
Jew and the Mahomedan claim and receive exemption by British law from following
the Briton’s example.
Why?
The excuse is that to the
Jew and to the Mahomedan, the slaughter of food‑animals has to be
conducted as a religious rite; and that this rite does not allow of the humane
process of stunning the animal before its throat is cut.
Actually, Mahomedans
willingly waive their religious objections to stunning the animals, and I have
myself found that in the East they are easily persuaded to allow animals
destined for their food to be shot through the head provided the throat is
severed (with the utterance of a prayer) immediately afterwards, whilst the
blood can still flow freely.
In a letter to the
R.S.P.C.A. the Imam of Woking Mosque wrote on 4th September, 1928, that in his
opinion the use of the Humane Killer (a stunning instrument) does not collide
with the instructions given in the Koran.
But in the case of the Jew,
the animal‑protection societies have been faced with an obstinate refusal
to acquiesce in the abolition of this cruel “religious” custom, despite the
fact that every Jew living in Britain, whatever the law may now say, is a
stranger and an alien. Even stunning by electricity has been declared
inadmissible by the Rabbis.
Only one of these animal
protection societies has put up any real fight against the Jews; the others
have surrendered because of the large subscriptions received from Jews to
prevent these organisations taking the matter up seriously. Money talks louder
than Love!
A Power which can bring our
Nation to war against its enemies who are not our enemies, finds it
comparatively simple to stifle British attempts to do justice to its own
bullocks!
What is Shechita, the Jewish Method of Slaughter?
It is quite simple; it is
cutting the throat from ear to ear without previous stunning, and letting the
animal bleed to death.
Before the throat‑cutting
can be done, the bullock has to be thrown to the floor, or “cast,” as it is
called. Various methods of doing this are used, the usual procedure being to rope
the feet together, pass the end of the rope through a ring in the wall, and
pull the rope until the animal falls. Naturally, on the hard floor of the
slaughter‑house, this is rough treatment, and when, as sometimes happens,
the animal’s horns are broken in the fall, it causes acute suffering, for a
broken horn means a broken bone in the case of cattle, the horn having a bony
core.
To mitigate the violence of
casting, indiarubber or straw mattresses have been employed, but are not in
general use.
A Jew named Weinberg adapted
the invention of a Veterinary Surgeon to the purpose of painless casting of
bullocks for Jewish slaughter. This resulted in what is known as the Weinberg
Pen, into which the bullock is driven and secured; then the pen, like an operating‑table
for horses, is rotated until the bullock is upside down, ready for the cut.
But, as the Jewish B’nai B’rith in Leeds reported in 1927, the Weinberg Pen is
not used, even when provided, unless visitors are expected.
When the throat is cut, the wound
in an ordinary bullock is twelve inches long and gapes twelve inches wide when
the head is forced back. Thus forcing back of the head to tense the throat
tissues is done by means of a lever.
The Common‑sense View.
Seeing that twelve inches of
skin are cut through, albeit that the knife used is always extremely sharp it
would seem impossible that anyone could be persuaded that the Jewish method of
cattle‑slaughter is justifiable as long as methods precluding pain are
available. Even a child soon learns (it is one of the first things it learns)
that to make even a nick in the skin, is very painful. Yet, to their discredit,
many people have defended Shechita, including physiologists and veterinary
surgeons.
I maintain that any
individual is as competent as
any so‑called “expert” to judge whether Shechita is painful or not; by
merely exercising common sense.
If it is not painful, why is
it necessary to throw the animal down before the operation can be done?
If it is not painful, why
are criminals not executed that way instead of by dislocation of the neck?
I
have heard it stated, even, that if it was painful, the
bullocks would cry out! Could you cry out if your throat was cut?
However, people like to have the views of experts, so you shall have them.
Expert Opinions Condemning
Shechita.
Perhaps the most
authoritative condemnation of the Jewish method of cattle‑slaughter was a
report made by an Admiralty Committee in 1904; this committee was interested in
the matter from the point of view of rationing the navy’s food. The report was
backed by two physiologists, Professor E. H. Starling, Jodrell Professor of
Physiology, London University College, and Sir Michael Foster, Professor of
Physiology at Cambridge. The report’s conclusions were that “the Jewish system
fails in the primary requirements of rapidity, freedom from unnecessary pain
and instantaneous loss of sensibility” and that “until some method is devised
for rendering the animal unconscious, it
should not be permitted under any establishment under Government control.” That, surely, is definite enough;
but this report, 35 years old, has simply been pigeon‑holed and nothing
has been done about it.
The First Lord of the
Admiralty at that time was the Earl of Selborne, who had been private secretary
to the Jewish H. C. Childers, and was later co-director with the Jews S. B.
Joel and Sir S. Neumann in the African Banking Corporation, and with the Monds
(Jews) in the Natal Ammonium, Ltd.! If the report had ever got past him, it
would have been stopped by the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, who was Prime Minister,
and who promised Palestine to the Jews later on!
Dr. Klein, Director of the
Abattoir at Lennep, Germany, made some simple
experiments in the presence of nine veterinary surgeons; he performed
these on several animals, which had had their throats cut by the Jewish method.
The experiment simply consisted in cutting the ropes binding the animals’ legs
immediately after the cut was made. The animals then rose to their feet,
staggered about fully conscious, then sank to their knees and finally
collapsed. Klein found that consciousness remained for at least forty seconds
after the cut. He concluded that “the Jewish method must be forbidden in our
civilised country” and when Hitler came to power, it was. Death would of course
come quicker to these animals on which Klein made his observations than to
animals remaining prostrate and secured, because the muscular exertions in
rising and moving about would greatly hasten the bleeding.
Mr. James King, Veterinary Inspector
to the Corporation of London, said that in his experience it took three or tour
minutes before animals slaughtered by the Jewish method lost sensibility after
the cut.
In 1933, a questionnaire was
sent to 605 Dutch Veterinary Surgeons, with the result that 500 condemned the
Jewish method as unjustifiable.
The following year, the
Melbourne Argus (29th Aug.) published reports from Chief Inspectors to
the Health Committee, New South Wales, who almost unanimously condemned
Shechita on account of its cruelty.
For many years, the method
has by law been prohibited in Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of Germany; now
it is stopped everywhere under Nazi rule. Switzerland prohibits by a law which
is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance.
The method has long been
expressly condemned also by the Director of the Abattoir in Brussels.
Mr. F. Marshall, M.P., spoke
in the House on the subject. “No terms
of mine,” he said, “can describe the horror of the Jewish method of slaughter.
It is the absolute acme of cruelty and pain.” Needless to say, he was defeated
at the next election.
Apologists for the Jewish Method of Slaughter.
Professor Sir Leonard Hill,
physiologist, says (Lancet, 22nd Dec., 1923) that the bullock
does not feel the cut of the Jews’ knife. On another occasion (in May, 1932,
speaking to an audience of Jewish slaughtermen) he said he had no doubt that
when the Weinberg pen was used “the animal is brought by this method into a
confusional state, which is equivalent to a hypnotic condition.” In other
words, the Professor suggests that to hypnotise an animal, all you have to do
is to turn it upside down! I suggest that it is the Professor himself who has
been brought into a hypnotic condition, and we feel positive that there is a
close Jewish relationship which produced it.
Another physiologist, Sir W.
Bayliss also defended Shechita, but with a name like that, and a father called
Moses, it is not altogether surprising.
General Sir John Moore,
Director of Veterinary Services in the Great War, wrote in 1931 to the Shechita
Board: “I consider that the complete severance of the large blood vessels of
the neck in the act of cutting according to Jewish ritual is a quick and humane
method of despatch.” Sir John, however, is a Freemason, and we may dismiss his
opinion with contempt in view of the experiments of Dr. Klein already
mentioned; besides, the vertebral arteries supply the brain with a considerable
amount of blood and are not severed when an animal’s throat is cut.
The late Sir Frederick
Hobday, Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, described the Jewish method
as the most humane in the world (Jewish Chronicle, 28th Nov., 1938,
p. 12). In July, 1927, Hobday wrote to the Jewish Chronicle to say that
he was taking a party, including ladies, over a foreign abattoir; and “we had
the misfortune to witness two instances in which the horns were completely
broken off (one in each case) during the process of casting for the Jewish
killing. The sight was most revolting, even to a hardened man.” What a curious
mentality! I should have thought the misfortune was to the bullocks rather than
to the onlookers. Sir Frederick’s hardening process was gained in three Masonic
Lodges, Nos. 3386, 2190 and 4474, and he was one of the founders of the last mentioned.
Mr. C. A. Lovatt Evans,
Professor of Physiology, University of London, is quoted by the Jew C. Roth in The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation as saying: “I should
be happy to think that my own end were likely to be as swift and painless as
the end of these cattle killed in this way undoubtedly is.” Words fail me in
attempting to comment upon this alleged statement.
Some Jewish apologists for
the method would be almost amusing were the subject less grim.
The Jew Weinberg, speaking
to the Leeds B’nai B’rith said: “The moment the arteries are cut, the animal
goes off in a pleasant dreamy manner into unconsciousness.”
The Jewish Chronicle, 16th March, 1923, says: “If the
eating of flesh is a necessity, then it is passing fudge, hypocritical humbug
and cant, to worry about a second or two more or less of pain occasioned to the
animal in procuring it.” We agree, it would be, to a Jew; but not to the
average Aryan, who would regard even “a second or two” as of some importance,
and forty seconds and more as sufficient to condemn the method and all who
advocate it.
The Jew Sir Samuel Montague,
when asked, before the 1904 Admiralty Committee, how he would like to be
treated like that, said “I cannot fathom the feelings of an ox myself.” He also
declared that indiarubber mattresses were “used everywhere” to reduce the rough
treatment in casting the bullocks; to which the Commissioners replied that they
had never met with any such indiarubber mattresses! Finally, the Jew gave
himself away by mentioning that he had himself offered a prize of £200 for an
anæsthetic which could be used in the Jewish method of slaughter; but what need
is there for an anæsthetic, if death by shechita is simply a matter of going
off “in a pleasant dreamy manner into unconsciousness?”
Reading all these
recommendations of the method, we wonder the R.S.P.C.A. has not been prevailed
upon to join in them; but the fact remains that it hasn’t. Why not?
Once more, I repeat, because
it is sheer common‑sense that cutting the throat from ear to car is a
ghastly painful process, and it is impossible that contrary opinions by sane
men can be honest ones.
The Extensive Use of Shechita.
Most of my readers probably
think that shechita is only practised upon animals destined for the food of Jews.
It is most important that they should realise that the method is used far more
generally than that.
In London, not less than
1,000 bullocks every week are done to death by shechita. In Antwerp, all cattle
are killed that way. In New York, 90 per cent. (about 8,000 cattle, and 100,000
sheep every week).
Why is this?
Because Gentiles eat most of
the carcase of an animal killed by the Jewish method. Jewish ritual forbids
Jews to consume the hind quarters of beasts killed for food unless
those hindquarters have been subjected to a process called “porging.” This
porging consists in the removal by dissection of certain blood vessels and fat,
a dissection which requires some skill and which therefore is seldom resorted
to. Thus, for practically every beast slaughtered by shechita, there is a whole
hindquarters available for Gentile consumption.
That is why the number of
animals slaughtered in this method so greatly
exceeds the needs of the Jewish population.
Moneymaking is the Key to
the Situation.
The obstructive tactics
employed by Jews to prevent the abolition of this unnecessary suffering to our
animals is due to the fact that the Jewish community gains large sums from fees
received for the services of the Jewish slaughterer. In 1939, at Glasgow, these
fees amounted to 13s. before they were raised to 15s. 6d. per head.
The fees are used for the
religious education of Jews and for other Jewish purposes. As the fees are
included in the price of the meat to consumers, it follows that most of the shechita fees paid in this
so-called Christian country are really paid by Gentiles who eat most of the meat. Thus, the
Gentile is cunningly made to pay for Jewish education and Jewish charities out
of unnecessary cruelty to British bullocks!
Did you know that? Well, you do now.
Here is a list of Jewish
charities with the grants they received from staples funds of the Shechita
Board in Liverpool in 1934, taken from The
Jewish Chronicle of 15th June:—
Jewish Board of Guardians £130.
Talmud Torah Schools £130.
Liverpool Yeshiva £100.
Hebrew Schools £42.
Charity Funerals Board £50.
Lechem Aneyim Society £50.
Somech Noflim Society £50.
Gemiluth Chasodin Society £35.
Hebrew Provident Society £25.
Ladies’ Bikur Cholim Society £25.
Jewish Temporary Shelter £10 10s.
Jewish Orphan Aid Society £10 10s.
Jewish Ladies’ Benevolent Inst. £6 6s.
Hebrew Philanthropic Society £5 10s.
Hebrew Children’s Soup Fund £5 5s.
Society for Protection of Jewish Girls £5 5s.
Liverpool Jewish Children’s Country Home £5 5s.
Jewish Boys’ Clothing Society £3 3s.
Sewing Society for Clothing Jewish Poor £3 3s.
Jewish Children’s Clothing Society £3 3s.
Rabbinical Commission for Licensing of Shochetim
£10.
Writing of Warsaw, the same
paper states (8th Feb., 1935) “The well‑known Kosher meat tax is still
the chief financial standby of the religious Jewish community.”
On 15th October, 1937, it
said:—“A material addition to the funds available for the vital cause of
(Jewish) religious education has been provided in part out of the Shechita Board’s
surplus.”
Again, this time referring
to the prohibition of Shechita in Upper Silesia, the paper stated (29th Sept.,
1933) “The Rabbis are suffering and many of them have not been able to receive
their salaries on account of the absence of ritual killing. As in other countries (our italics),
Shechita was a source of income to the Rabbis and other communal leaders. Even
religious classes were supported from this source. Now several religious
schools are to be closed clown as the teachers have been without salaries for
weeks.”
Now do you see what is behind this Shechita business?
A Religious Rite.
Some thoughtless people
would have Shechita protected because it is a religious rite.
Sutti, the burning of Hindu
widows, was a religious rite in India, but we stopped it. Thuggee, the
religious strangling of fellow-travellers was also a religious rite in India,
and we stopped that, too.
It is utterly ridiculous to
claim that barbarism should be perpetuated in this, our own country, to protect
an alien ritual.
Shechita is no part of the
Mosaic law, but was prescribed by the Rabbis. There was money in it.
The Jews did not even invent
it, but copied it from the Egyptians. The Beni Hasan models from Egyptian tombs
of the 12th dynasty show the process, and the exodus, if indeed it ever took
place, is supposed to have happened in the 19th dynasty.
My Experiences with the
R.S.P.C.A.
I have often tried to get
the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to get Shechita stopped,
but in vain. At meetings of the Guildford Branch where I brought the matter up,
I was treated by the Chairman as though I were a pickpocket. Here is a
newspaper version of one of these occasions taken from the Surrey Times,
30th April, 1932:
A man in the body of the
hall said he wished to call the meeting’s attention to a revolting case of
cruelty to animals, and explained that it had reference to the Jewish method of
slaughter.
The Chairman: I rule it out
of order. I won’t have it discussed here.
Mr. A. S. Leese: This is a
society to prevent cruelty to animals. Does not the Jewish method involve
cruelty to animals? Some twenty-eight years ago it was condemned by the
government.
The Chairman: I cannot have
a debate in open house on this question. I won’t have it.
There were cries of “Shame.”
Mr. Leese: We are trying to
stop it. I am sure the meeting wants to hear it; let’s have publicity.
The Chairman: I won’t have it.
Mr. Leese: Let’s get on with it.
The Chairman: You won’t get on with it here at a
public meeting.
Another member of the
audience: Would you tell this meeting where it can be discussed? Even in London
they won’t do it.
The Chairman: The Committee
in London lay down our policy. I decline to allow a question which is open to
libel to be discussed at this meeting.
The real cause of this
opposition to reform by the R.S.P.C.A. was fear of losing powerful Jewish and
Masonic financial support. I hope that the new Secretary will prove strong
enough to initiate proceedings whereby the practice of Shechita may be made illegal.
I have always found that the audiences were sympathetic to my efforts, the
excited opposition coming from the platform and the Chair.
I will conclude by showing
how, even under the present law, it should be possible for an honest, powerful
anti‑cruelty society to put an end to most of this miserable business, if
not quite all of it.
How to Stop It.
The Slaughter of Animals Act
(1933) allows the killing of animals by the Jewish method, but only for the
food of Jews.
If, then, a Jewish
slaughterman uses the method for despatching a beast the carcase of which will
not be porged, he breaks the law because the beast’s hindquarters will not be
eaten by Jews but by Gentiles.
The vast majority of
carcases of beasts slaughtered by the Jewish method are not porged.
This being the case, the
Jewish slaughterman should, in reason and in law, ascertain for himself, before
killing the beast, that its carcase is intended for porging. If he kills the
animal by the Jewish method and the carcase is not then porged, he has broken
the law.
The rich animal protection
societies, then, have only to send an Inspector to the slaughter‑house to
keep a watch on the Jewish slaughterers and on the disposal of the carcases,
and could bring enough prosecutions as a result of a single day’s observations
practically to end the scandal of the Jewish method of slaughter altogether.