Search

Simple Summary: Religious slaughter has recently attracted public attention as a result of media portrayal of several high-profile Australian and international events. The requirements of domestic religious slaughter practice, including animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public. This paper summarizes the welfare science and regulatory framework around halal and shechita slaughter in Australia. Current knowledge on public viewpoints on these practices is examined, and areas for future social science research are proposed. In spite of wide-ranging and extensive animal welfare protection being provided by the law, we propose that the complexity of the legislative arrangement reduces transparency and undermines the strength of protection to animals provided by law. Avenues for legal reform are proposed. There is also a need for more active public engagement to increase community knowledge about religious slaughter practices, and to counter Islamophobia and anti-Semitic attitudes. While religious slaughter is not a new practice in Australia, it has recently attracted public concern regarding questions of animal welfare following unfavourable media coverage. However, the details of religious slaughter practices, including related animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public, and no existing literature concisely synthesises current regulations, practices, and issues. This paper addresses this gap by examining the processes associated with various types of religious slaughter and associated animal welfare issues, by reviewing the relevant legislation and examining public views, while highlighting areas for further research, particularly in Australia. The paper finds shortcomings in relation to transparency and understanding of current practices and regulation and suggests a need for more clear and consistent legislative provisions, as well as increased independence from industry in the setting of the standards, enforcement and administration of religious slaughter. A starting point for legal reform would be the relocation of important provisions pertaining to religious slaughter from delegated codes to the responsible act or regulation, ensuring proper parliamentary oversight. In addition, more active public engagement must occur, particularly with regard to what constitutes legal practices and animal welfare standards in the Australian context to overcome ongoing conflict between those who oppose religious slaughter and the Muslim and Jewish communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Animal cruelty or neglect is an emotive social issue. Animal welfare legislation is the primary tool for defining, penalizing and hopefully deterring animal cruelty. A number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process have been previously identified. These issues contribute to a discrepancy between the written law and the realities of the animal law enforcement process: the 'enforcement gap'. This paper reviews the available resources to identify the causes of this 'gap'. It is argued that the 'gap' is caused by numerous factors derived from all stages of the enforcement process: (1) reporting acts of animal cruelty, (2) ambiguity and shortcomings derived from the language used in animal welfare legislation (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) court determination on the matter. In order to reduce the enforcement gap and bring the expectations closer to reality, further research is needed. Previous research has identified a number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process. These issues contribute to an enforcement gap between the written law, as it relates to the penalties laid out in statutes, and the reality of the animal law justice system. This paper identifies and investigates the contributors to this gap. The identified factors discussed are (1) the role of the public in reporting animal cruelty, (2) the ambiguity of the language used in animal welfare legislation, (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) the role of the courts. Thus, the causes of the enforcement gap are multifactorial, derived from all stages of the enforcement process. Further research on the enforcement model and public education, in addition to debate on legislative reforms, will be needed to address this gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]