Dealing with tensions of multiculturalism: The politics of ritual slaughter in the Netherlands

Abstract

This article deals with the question how cultural diversity, expressed in a parliamentary debate, can influence the space given to religious minorities to substantiate their identity. The debate about the prohibition of non-stunned ritual slaughter in the Dutch Parliament in 2011/2012 serves as case study. A frame analysis reveals that tensions exist between minority rights and majority values and with regard to the regulation of religion in the public sphere. The article concludes that politicians struggle to position themselves amidst those fundamental questions and certainty is sought in the legal, political, scientific, economic and historical domain. There is no simple answer to the question what determines the space given to religious minorities to substantiate their identities. Although a political majority decision was taken at the end of a long trajectory, this was a compromise that leaves the controversy with its related uncertainties unsolved.

Keywords

Cultural diversity frame analysis multicultural tensions multiculturalism ritual slaughter

Introduction

Traditionally, food practices are linked with the expression of cultural identity. Through these practices, groups can distinguish themselves from others (Fischler, 1988; Mintz and Du Bois, 2002) and ‘reinforce their sense of belonging’ (Cantarero et al., 2013: 881). Immigrants reconnect with their original culture through the consumption of traditional food (Weller and Turkon, 2015). In the European context, the claim of Muslims and other minorities to experience their own cultural identity through their food practices is generally accepted if they are in line with the laws of the particular country (Lerner and Rabello, 2006). Nevertheless, the religious convictions on which these practices are often based may conflict with other, particularly secular values. In such cases, tolerance regarding cultural diversity may come under pressure and minority food practices may become a challenge through which criticisms against multiculturalism manifest themselves.

This article aims to illustrate and grasp these food-related tensions of multiculturalism with a study in a specific problem field and context. The problem field concerns the conflicting values within the debate over ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter, as a practice of meat production for Islamic and Jewish consumers, is based on a complex set of rules, wherein the animal’s neck is cut with a sharp knife, a prayer is said and the animal exsanguinates (for more detailed information see Regenstein et al., 2003). Research has shown that controversies exist over the effect of non-stunned ritual slaughter on animal welfare (Cenci-Goga et al., 2013; Grandin and Regenstein, 1994; Kijlstra and Lambooij, 2008; Rosen, 2004; Von Holleben et al., 2010) and the necessity and permissibility of stunning methods in Islam (Nakyinsige et al., 2013; Salamano et al., 2013; Van Waarden and Van Dalen, 2013; Velarde et al., 2014). Moreover, it has been discussed whether and how non-stunned ritual slaughter should be covered by national and international law (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2007; Lerner and Rabello, 2006; Levine, 2011; Smith, 2007; Wohlrab-Sahr, 2004; Zoethout, 2013) and how political actors dealt with the issue in past and current debates (Havinga, 2008; Wallet, 2012).

The context of this study is the Dutch parliamentary debate. The Netherlands has long been pictured as a tolerant society. However, since the turn of the century the public and political debate has shifted from framing multiculturalism as societal enrichment towards a critical attitude regarding cultural diversity. This new discourse is charged with emotions over the challenges of multiculturalism and the uptake of these emotions by national populists and opinion leaders. The latter anticipate tensions between the ideal-typical Dutch national values, for example, modern, western, open, tolerant and individualistic, and non-western values, particularly of the Islamic minority (Sleegers, 2007). These tensions manifested themselves in the fierce debate over the prohibition of non-stunned ritual slaughter between 2008 and 2012. A bill handed in by the animal rights party led to a parliamentary debate about the protection of animal rights versus the right of religious minorities to execute their religious practices. While the Lower House voted in favour of a ban of non-stunned ritual slaughter in an amended form, this decision was later rejected by the Upper House.

In this article, the parliamentary debate will be analysed in order to answer the question: How is cultural diversity expressed in the contestation of value claims regarding non-stunned ritual slaughter and what does this imply for the space given to religious minorities to substantiate their identity?

This question will be answered using a frame-critical policy analysis. This type of analysis is used to identify a policy controversy, construct competing frames and specify the forum of the discourse (Rein and Schön, 1996). Frames are constructs of meaning that represent value claims and steer policy discourse. Through examining contradicting frames, their interactions and the development of dominant frames, decision making processes can better be understood and conclusions can be drawn about the space given to diverse expressions of identity.

The next section further elaborates on frame analysis and the methods of data collection used for this research. Thereafter, the frames used in the parliamentary debate at different points in time are illustrated and the frame changes are explained. The conclusion elaborates how different political actors try to position themselves towards minority rights in general and the right of religious freedom specifically.

Methodology

Framing is the process of painting a picture of a certain issue, thereby emphasizing some parts of the reality ‘in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation’ (Entman, 1993: 52). In other words, framing entails the identification of a problem, a proposal of a solution and a motivation for individuals to act (Benford, 1993; Snow and Benford, 1988). It is an inherently normative process that can either be used subconsciously to simplify and organize complex realities or strategically to advance one’s interest (Shmueli et al., 2006).

Public policies depend on framing because they are constructs of problems and corresponding solutions that are inherently selective and normative (Scholten, 2011). Politicians use issue framing, which ‘refers to the meanings attached to agenda items, events or problems in the relevant domain or context’ (Dewulf et al., 2009: 165). They draw a picture of a certain policy issue, thereby defining the problem in normative terms and promoting specific policy measures while precluding others. Through this process they promote their own preferred policy option (Campbell, 2002). A policy debate may entail parties with contradicting strategic frames. Yet, these frames may change during a policy debate, since the construction of meaning is not static, but unfolds through interaction (Van Hulst and Yanow, 2014). However, in a situation where the option of frame change is limited, ‘the scope for reflection is overly constrained, and when the contest reaches deeply symbolic meaning within society’ (Rein and Schön, 1996: 95), an intractable policy controversy may arise. This may lead to a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, when politician cannot understand each other due to a fundamental disagreement on the problem definition and the measures to be taken (Scholten, 2011). In a liberal democracy, a diversity of frames is valued, but in a system with majority decisions on bills, the most dominant frames may affect the policy options considered by politicians and the outcome of the policy making process. Since policy measures may influence the space given to minorities to express their identity, it is crucial to assess frames as representations of value claims, how frame change occurs and why certain frames become dominant.

The frame-critical policy analysis of this study is based on a thematic content analysis. Content analysis is a method used to systematically extract information from data in order to identify specific characteristics of its content (Smith, 2000). A thematic content analysis focuses on certain themes within the material. The debate about ritual slaughter in the Dutch Parliament was analysed in order to determine its most prominent themes. The first step was the identification of the most important data sources. These consisted of the transcribed minutes and videos of all parliamentary debates open to the public, all official motions, amendments to the bill and the official letter exchange as provided by the Dutch online archive for public announcements between September 2008 and June 2012. In a second step, the resulting 453 documents were assessed manually regarding duplicates and their actual relevance to the debate and 29 documents were chosen for an initial inductive coding. Inductive coding involves reading the material with an open attitude and little preconditions in order to reveal possible frames (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). The software Max QDA was used, which allowed for a simplified comparison and clustering of codes. Every paragraph received an individual code that represented its major content. From the variety of codes, 13 overarching themes were identified (Table 1) that played a major role in the debate.

Table 1.

Overarching coding themes.

Overarching themes
Animal welfare
Relativity of the problem
Meat labelling
Meat export
NIMBY effect
Policy problem
Religious freedom
Role of science
Conventions and constitution
Participation
Culture
Technical process
Integration problem

NIMBY: Not In My Backyard.

In the fourth step, these themes were used to develop a deductive code list which was employed to execute the inclusive coding. Only the transcribed minutes of the official debates¹ in the Lower House and the Upper House² were used for the inclusive coding and each political party received a separate set of codes. From the codes, frames were developed at three points in time for each party. Parties with overlapping frames were taken together and overall frames were developed, organized around the central disputed themes of debate. These frames are static representations of the meaning constructed. In order to explain the shift in frames, qualitative interviews were conducted with eight party representatives³ and two representatives of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the Netherlands.

Frame analysis of the Dutch political debate about ritual slaughter

While the animal rights party holds only two seats in parliament, its bill caused a major debate in the Dutch Parliament and in an amended form gained a majority in the Lower House. The bill proposed the removal of an exemption from obligatory pre-stunning for Israelite and Islamic ritual slaughtering from former Article 44 of the health and welfare law for animals (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2008). Due to the filing of the bill as an amendment of an agricultural law, it was announced through the minister of agriculture, nature and food quality. In the usual process of law making in the Netherlands, the bill was sent to the Council of State (CoS), the official advisory body to the parliament, which assesses bills, but cannot give binding advice. Its major conclusions were that the bill forms a limitation to religious freedom, conflicting with Article 6.1 of the Dutch constitution⁴ and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)⁵. Furthermore, the CoS ‘did not consider the infringement to animal welfare as such a pressing social need that it justifies an unconditional ban on ritual slaughter’ (Raad van State, 2008). Yet, after debates in the Lower House in February, April and June 2011 the amended bill was accepted with a majority of 116 against 30 votes (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011f). In June 2012, the Upper House, however, rejected the bill inter alia using the arguments of the CoS. Instead, a covenant was concluded by the Dutch government, religious organizations and the organization of slaughter houses and meat producing companies. It involved arrangements concerning the improvement of animal welfare, education of slaughterers, the initiation of a scientific advisory commission, and the supervision of slaughter houses.

The debate about ritual slaughter triggered emotions and touched upon various complex and interrelated topics. Some were unanimously agreed upon while others led to diverging frames. All parties agreed that animals should not undergo unnecessary suffering during the slaughter process. Moreover, they acknowledged that ritual slaughter represents only a small share of the Dutch meat production compared to intensive meat production processes, whose practices are frequently criticized. It was also mutually agreed that the current meat labelling practices are not sufficiently informing the consumer. The export of non-stunned meat was criticized as drastically increasing the scale of Dutch non-stunned meat production. Finally, all parties acknowledged that a prohibition of non-stunned ritual slaughter may shift production to neighbouring countries or to the black market, although the animal rights party was less explicit about this issue than other parties. Since these points were unanimously agreed upon, they will not be addressed in the frame analysis. The focus will rather be on the more controversial topics and how the framing of those topics changed throughout the debate. The major controversy was whether animal welfare and religious views on ritual slaughter are compatible. Within the framework of this question, fiercely debated topics were the significance of religious freedom and animal welfare, the use of science, the compliance of the draft bill with the ECHR as well as the Dutch constitution, and the participation of religious groups in decision making.

Original frames of the Lower House

A total of 10 parties⁶ participated in the first term of the debate on 17 February 2011 and 13 April 2011. Four frames were identified from an analysis of the speeches of their spokespersons.

Religious freedom fighter

The Christian conservative parties gave priority to religious freedom above animal welfare. They agreed with the need for improvement in animal welfare, but not at the cost of the Jewish tradition in Europe. Due to many alternative improvement options, they considered the bill a disproportional restriction to religious freedom and therefore in conflict with the ECHR and the Dutch constitution. In their view, religious groups should have the freedom to interpret their religion independently and to execute their religious duties. The decision about the bill should be based on moral considerations, especially in the absence of scientific consensus. Moreover, the Christian conservatives argued that ‘one should speak with religious minorities and not about them’ (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a: 54-4-5, Christen Democratisch Appèl (CDA)).

Compromise seeker

The social democratic party and the conservative liberal party were initially indecisive. They saw the need for ritually slaughtered meat in religious communities, but they also recognized new alternatives and agreed that ‘religious freedom does not give anyone the right to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals’ (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a: 54-4-29, PvdA). They would have liked to see a compromise, reducing animal suffering without restricting religious freedom. Both found no scientific consensus about animal suffering, and they were unsure how the bill would relate to national and international law. Yet, they emphasized that the inclusion of religious groups in the decision making process would be an important step forward.

Animal activist

The socialist party, the green party, the animal rights party and the social liberal party prioritized animal welfare above religious freedom. They found that religious groups should have the freedom to execute their religion within the established norms of animal welfare. Animals should not suffer additional pain due to religious convictions and ‘it should not make a difference for the animal whether its slaughterer is Jewish, Muslim, Christian or secular’ (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a: 54-4-28, D66). That non-stunned ritual slaughter leads to unnecessary additional pain for animals was seen as a scientific fact. They argued against a breach of the bill with the ECHR and the Dutch constitution because ‘the state can restrict religious freedom on the basis of public order, security and morality’ (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a: 54-4-27, D66). Participation of religious groups in decision making was rejected, because it had not led to fruitful results in the past and only prolonged animal suffering. It was, however, seen as valuable for the implementation of the prohibition.

Multiculturalism critics

The right wing nationalist party wanted to prohibit all rituals during slaughtering, arguing that the animals may suffer from the presence of an Imam and music played during the slaughtering ceremony. They framed the Netherlands as a civilized country where backwards traditions should not be accepted: ‘In some countries, religions and ideologies people are stoned or hanged. […] You cannot just say: They think differently about it, thus it is allowed here as well. In our countries animals are not being mistreated or tortured’ (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a: 54-4-13, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV)). According to them, scientific consensus existed that ritual slaughter leads to additional animal suffering, if only Dutch reports were taken into account instead of scientific reports from countries with worse animal welfare conditions. Therefore, they rejected foreign research reports concerning the issue. A summary of the frames can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Frames Lower House first term.

Frame	Preference
Frame	Religious freedom priority	Animal welfare priority	Scientific consensus	Draft bill accepted	ECHR and Dutch constitution satisfied	Participation needed
Religious freedom fighter	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes
Compromise seeker	Partly	Partly	No	Partly	Partly	Yes
Animal activist	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Multiculturalism critics	No	Yes	Yes	Partly	Unknown	Unknown

ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights.

Changing frames in the Lower House

The second term of the debate was scheduled on 22 June 2011, just after a roundtable debate with different interest groups, such as religious movements and scientists, and few days before the voting about the bill. In the meantime, two amendments had been submitted. The Christian conservative parties proposed the preservation of the exemption for non-stunned ritual slaughter, but applying stricter rules of which the most debated ones were a maximum time of animal consciousness of 45 seconds after slaughtering and the reintroduction of slaughter permits depending on demand (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011d). The green party, the social liberal party, the social democratic party and the conservative liberal party proposed to include the possibility of exemption from the prohibition only if religious groups could prove scientifically that their slaughter methods would not create more animal suffering than regular slaughter methods (Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011e). These two amendments reflect the change of frames that had taken place between the two debates. The constellation of parties had changed, as well as the scale of polarization (see Table 3). Whereas in the first term of debate, there was a division between the Christian parties, the left wing parties and the right wing nationalist party, leaving the social democrats and conservative liberals indecisive in the middle, the second term of debate revealed a different picture.

Table 3.

Frames Lower House second term.

Frame	Preference
Frame	Religious freedom priority	Animal welfare priority	Scientific consensus	Exemption amendment	Prohibition amendment	ECHR and Dutch constitution satisfied^*	Participation accepted
Religious freedom fighter	Yes	Partly	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Compromise seeker	Partly	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Animal activist	No	Yes	Yes	No	Partly	Yes	No
Multiculturalism critics	No	Yes	Yes	No	Partly	Unknown	No

ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights.

with the amendment supported by the particular frame.

Compromise seekers

The previously indecisive parties joined the camp of the green party and the social liberals, which argued for animal rights above religious freedom, but became more moderate throughout the debate with regard to the recognition of religious rights. They assumed the presence of scientific consensus that non-stunned ritual slaughter leads to additional animal suffering, but saw a need for participation of religious groups in order to create animal welfare in ritual slaughter practices. The joint votes of these parties created majority support for the bill with their amendment. Different explanations for the shift in framing and the changing constellation of parties have been offered by the interviewees. According to the representative of the animal rights party, the previously indecisive parties got convinced by the scientific reports which showed that ritual slaughter inflicts additional suffering on animals, which was used to legitimize the limitation of religious freedom. The ECHR provides for a limitation if it is 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’ (Council of Europe, 1950). On the basis of a poll among the Dutch population, the animal rights party concluded that animal welfare is part of Dutch morality and prevails above religious freedom. The representative of right wing nationalist party explained the change of frame as a reaction to popular pressure, since the majority of the population supported the bill. Moreover, he saw the protection of Christian values as an additional possible motivation. The representative of the conservative liberal party in the Upper House explained the shift of frames in the Lower House by political opportunism, populist, laconic and superficial handling of the debate without thinking about the consequences for minorities in society. One of the Christian conservative parties argued that the rejection of involvement of religious groups in the debate at the Lower House had increased the bias towards animal welfare. The social liberal party’s representative from the Upper House argued that the growing publicity through, for example, ‘the use of a terrifying movie and the shared animal welfare objectives of his colleagues in the Lower House strongly influenced the political momentum that led to support for the amended bill’. The moderation of the original bill by means of an amendment was explained through the growing lobby by religious organizations and the pressure of the constituency.

Religious freedom fighter

The Christian parties that kept their alliance became more moderate in their pursuit to preserve religious freedom and made concrete proposals to increase animal welfare. They rejected the bill mainly in the light of the preservation of religious freedom and welcomed the participation of religious groups in decision making. Due to their own beliefs and in the light of European history, they understood the religious feelings of Jews and Muslims against the prohibition. Moreover, they perceived a lack of scientific evidence for the additional suffering of animals during non-stunned ritual slaughter. The moderation of these parties as expressed by their amendment was explained by their personal engagement with animal welfare and the Christian concept of guardianship for nature and all living beings. They acknowledged that ritual slaughter could lead to unacceptable suffering of large and heavy animals and therefore tried to limit the slaughter practice to small animals.

Animal activists and multiculturalism critics

The socialist party, the animal rights party and the right wing nationalist party were less willing to make concessions. All three rejected the amendment by the Christian conservative parties and the latter two also saw no added value in including an exemption to the prohibition, yet voted in favour of the amended bill. The animal rights party rejected the participation of religious groups in decision making, because previous negotiations had not led to the desired results. The right wing nationalist party argued that people are being fooled by the amendment to the bill and again plead for a total prohibition of all kinds of ritual slaughter. Their representative found that ritual slaughter should be prohibited on the basis of scientific proof that it inflicts additional suffering on animals. He therefore rejected the participation of religious groups in decision making, as they may not be scientists with Dutch norms and values.

The lengthy debate in the Lower House resulted in the adoption of the bill with an amendment that included the possibility of exemption if religious groups could prove scientifically that their slaughter methods did not create more animal suffering than regular slaughter methods. In accordance with the Dutch constitution, the bill was then presented to the Upper House, whose primary task is the examination of a bill’s quality, its accordance with the constitution and international treaties, that the rights of the citizens are not infringed and whether the implementation is financially feasible (Eerste Kamer, n.d.).

Frame change in the Upper House

In the Upper House, there was a different constellation of parties with the same frame, as certain parties disagreed with their peers from the Lower House. Whereas in the Lower House four major frames have been identified that changed in composition and of which the majority became more moderate in their pursuits, in the Upper House only two frames were identified. Religious compromise seeker. On the one hand, there were the Christian conservative parties, the social liberal party, the social democratic party and the conservative liberal party who doubted the accordance of the bill with the Dutch constitution and the ECHR and its technical applicability. For them, religious freedom received the priority above animal welfare. Yet, they agreed that animal welfare should be improved and therefore supported the proposal of a covenant with the religious groups and the slaughter houses. They blamed the supporters of the bill of ethical absolutism and feared a disintegration of a minority from Dutch society. Animal Activist. On the other hand, there were the socialist party, the animal rights party, the right wing nationalist party, the elderly party and a regional party. These parties continued to support the bill, saw no clash with the Dutch constitution or the ECHR and believed that a practical application, providing small adjustments, would be possible. They prioritized animal welfare above religious freedom and found that participation of religious groups did not lead to the desired results (Table 4). These parties blamed their opponents of prioritizing economic benefit above animal rights. The green party entailed supporters of both sides of the debate and therefore gave their members the freedom to make an independent choice with regard to the voting.

Table 4.

Frames Upper House.

Frame	Preference					Amended
Frame	Religious freedom priority	Animal welfare priority	Scientific consensus	ECHR and Dutch constitution satisfied	Practical applicability	Draft bill accepted	Participation accepted
Religious compromise seeker	Yes	Partly	No	No	No	No	Yes
Animal activist	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights.

Several factors may explain the shift of frames from the Lower House to the Upper House. First of all, the role of the Upper House as guardian of the law facilitated the adoption of a more legal frame to the issue at hand. This led to a focus on the practical applicability of the bill and its amendment, and its compliance with the Dutch constitution and the ECHR. The legal applicability of the amendment to the bill was doubted, because there was disagreement about the existence of unambiguous scientific proof, and according to the conservative liberal party, the criteria for the exemption were not precise enough. Conflicts of the bill with the Dutch constitution and the ECHR were recognized on several grounds. A representative of the social democratic party argued that the burden of proof had been reversed by the bill with the amendment. Due to the amendment, it would no longer have been the governmental responsibility to grant a constitutional right, but citizens would have to prove that they are entitled to their right. He argued that this is problematic because ‘freedom should be the rule and limitation should be the exception. Here the limitation is the rule and freedom the exception’ (Eerste Kamer (Upper House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011b: 12-2-2, PvdA). Another criticism was that the principles of specificity, proportionality and respect for core legal objects had not been taken into account in the drafting of the bill: ‘These principles demand a thorough consideration of interests, whereby the interest of protecting the constitution should weigh heavily’ (Raad van State, 2008). It was criticized that the bill assumes that ‘where fundamental ethical values are threatened, ethics needs to prevail above religion’ (Eerste Kamer (Upper House of the Dutch Parliament), 2011a). Thus, a conservative liberal representative concluded that if religious freedom is always subordinated to animal welfare, the balancing of interests disappears and ethical absolutism is the result. It has further been argued that religious freedom could not be limited on the grounds of Dutch morals since animal welfare was not considered a pressing social need by the Upper House. Furthermore, the proportionality of the problem was disputed due to the perceived larger animal welfare problems in the bio-industry. Also the perceived use of industrial slaughter as the referential point for animal welfare was criticized in this respect. Another concern with regard to human rights was the protection of minorities in a democratic system with majority rule. The question about the representation of minorities revealed the tension between animal activists and religious minorities. In the Upper House, the hierarchy of values placed religious freedom and the related religious identity above animal rights, while trying to increase animal welfare within the frame of religious rules. Moreover, it was argued that only recently, in 2009, the Dutch animal law had been adopted which entailed the exemption for non-stunned ritual slaughter, due to possible contradiction with the constitution otherwise. Therefore, the bill was also rejected on the basis of law making history.

In addition to the legal arguments, organizational differences may have influenced the shift of frame from the Lower House to the Upper House. Due to its legal task, the Upper House is less dependent on political coalitions and therefore agreements regarding exchanges of favours and political compromises may be less important. Moreover, the Upper House cannot make adjustments to a bill to adapt it to their needs. They need to either accept or reject the bill which gives them less room for discussion on the content. This may explain why the technical inapplicability of the law led to the rejection rather than an adaptation of the amendment.

Almost all interviewees agreed that the pressure by the lobby and constituencies of the parties affected the decision making process in the Upper House. The constituencies of the parties and their voters put political pressure on the parliamentarians to reject the bill. According to the representative of the animal rights party, the religious lobby had a very strong position in the political arena, whereas the animal activists hardly managed to reach the political parties. By some interviewees, the influence of religious organizations was framed as pressuring politicians to relent to the interests of these groups. By others, it was framed in terms of providing valuable information that helped the parties in balancing their decision regarding religious freedom and animal rights. Additionally, the perceived willingness of religious minorities to cooperate and improve animal welfare in their slaughter processes contributed to the frame shift. According to a representative of a Christian conservative party, a covenant is a common Dutch way of facilitating agreements between stakeholders, and it is based on the idea that people signing agreement is more effective than when a law is imposed upon them. However, these kinds of agreements bring with them problems of self-monitoring, such as fraud and corruption. The public sector is needed in order to check the self-monitoring mechanism, but public interest may be subject to change. The representative of the animal rights party saw the covenant as a welcomed excuse for those political parties that were pressured by the religious lobby to diverge from the prohibition of non-stunned ritual slaughter towards a voluntary agreement. The representative of the social liberal party submitted that

the covenant could be effective as a way to force the religious groups to react to long-standing attempts of the government to cooperate and to achieve improvements, rather than enforcing a prohibition that may turn out non-compliant with the relevant treaties.

Moreover, a representative of a Christian conservative party argued that economic reasoning played a role in the shift of frame especially in the conservative liberal party. According to him, it was feared that the prohibition of ritual slaughter was just the first step on the path to improving the position of animal rights in the political sphere, which may be conveyed to the bio-industry. Such a spillover may heavily impact the Dutch agricultural export sector.

The Christian conservative parties in the Upper House especially argued that one needs to have very good reasons to limit the religious freedom of minority groups. This conservative viewpoint was used by the animal rights party as an explanation for the rejection of the bill. They argue that the Upper House is still too conservative in regards to animal welfare, but that this may change in the coming years. One of the Christian conservative parties however maintained that the Netherlands has to live up to its tradition of tolerance.

When comparing the Upper House and the Lower House debate, it becomes particularly apparent that in each House there was a different dominant discourse. In the Lower House, the problem was predominantly framed in terms of animal welfare. According to one of the Christian conservative parties in the Lower House, the topic was framed so strongly towards animal suffering that one could not even speak about religious freedom. In the Upper House, the latter was weighed more heavily because the bill would have resulted in a limitation of a constitutional right. Generally, it may be said that ‘it was a complex debate which combined attitudes towards disputed concepts such as sciences, religion, animals, history, and identity’ (Representative of a Christian conservative party).

Conclusion: Dealing with tensions of multiculturalism

This article analysed the politics of ritual slaughter in the context of the Dutch parliamentary debate about a bill intended to increase animal welfare, thereby restricting the Islamic and Jewish minority in their religious food practices. With the drafting of this bill, a practice that had previously belonged to the private sphere was transferred to the public sphere. Initially and superficially, the issue seemed to stimulate a confrontation between two sets of values: the religious values underlying non-stunned ritual slaughter versus the values of the protection of animals from what was seen as unnecessary suffering. However, on a deeper level, the issue raised the more fundamental question how a secular society should deal with multiculturalism and how much space should be given to minorities to substantiate their religious and cultural identity. The answer that was sought by political actors revealed many uncertainties and related tensions, which go far beyond the prioritization of different values. They relate to legal, political, scientific, economic and historical considerations.

In general terms, the debate touched upon the essential question in how far minorities have the right to execute their practices and to what extent the majority needs to respect those rights. In the debate, the question was posed in terms of ‘how much unnecessary suffering of animals is justifiable in order to assure the right to ritual slaughter?’ This question is inherently normative and poses challenges to core concepts of liberal democracies. While liberal democracies grant individual rights to their citizens, rights of one individual can undermine fundamental rights of another (Sardoč, 2011) and majority views can overrule minority values, even in the presence of human rights (Zoethout, 2013). The rights-based approach requires an interpretation and a hierarchy of values. Moreover, citizens of liberal democracies may fear to lose their national identity through cultural diversity (Rietveld, 2013). This fear, even if unfounded, needs to be taken seriously by politicians.

More operational, the issue touched upon the question whether religion should play a role in the public sphere and in how far religious practices should be regulated by secular states. The separation between the church and the state is an essential characteristic of a liberal democratic society (Nadon, 2014). In the Netherlands, the state is officially impartial towards different beliefs. The 20th century idea of ‘laïcité’ entailed on the one hand the separation between church and state and on the other hand the adherents’ acceptance that their religion is an individual affair that belongs to the private sphere (Roy, 2007). However, in recent years, religion has returned to the public sphere, with adherents requesting acknowledgement (Roy, 2007) and what Bader (2007) calls ‘re-normativizing the economic and political spheres’ (p. 18). This raises the question whether a strict separation between state and church is necessary or even feasible. Religious minorities started to claim rights, such as the execution of religious practices in the public sphere, then requested space in institutions such as schools and the public media and finally demanded some space in the political decision making process (Bader, 2007).

The political actors in the debate about ritual slaughter struggled in positioning themselves amidst those fundamental questions and certainty was sought in different domains. One way was the translation of the issue in legal terms. The ECHR provides the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It can only be limited 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’ (Council of Europe, 1950). Article 6 of the Dutch constitution defines the right of religious freedom in the national context. Exceptions are possible ‘for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders’ (Government of The Netherlands, 2012: 5). Whether legal obligations are seen as fixed or flexible influences the value of such provisions for the protection of minority rights. While the majority in the Lower House concluded that the adjusted bill would not be in breach with Article 6 of the Dutch constitution and Article 9 of the ECHR, the majority in the Upper House argued in reverse and additionally doubted the applicability of the bill with amendment.

The political game itself also played a role in the positions that were taken. This is displayed in several ways. First of all, there are differences in responsibilities between the Dutch Lower House and the Upper House. While the Lower House has the political task of weighing between moral considerations, the Upper House is responsible for checking the legal applicability of a bill. The bill entered the parliamentary debate as an amendment to an agricultural law, which may have led the political weighing towards animal welfare, while the legal perspective in the Upper House drew more heavily on minority rights. Moreover, the Lower House is directly dependent on popular votes and coalition agreements, while the Upper House is elected by provincial representatives and is less dependent on coalition forming. Second, the allowance of participation by interest groups was used as a tool to strengthen frames. On the one hand, the religious as well as the animal welfare lobby provided information to the political actors, which the latter used to support their frames. On the other hand, the participation by those affected in finding a solution itself was subject to framing. While proponents of a ban on non-stunned ritual slaughter framed religious groups as unsuccessful in increasing animal welfare to the desired extent, the opponents of the ban framed religious engagement as a crucial success factor. The willingness of the religious communities to participate in a covenant to improve animal welfare may have prevented the ban. Finally, bargaining power played a role as it has been argued that the Jewish organizations had more access to the political arena than Islamic and animal welfare organizations.

Another way of looking for certainty was the translation of the issue into a question of science. Scientific reports from various research institutes in different countries with diverging results were brought in by the political actors to support their frame. Yet, not only were the different conclusions regarding the effect of non-stunned ritual slaughter on animal welfare discussed, but also the validity of the data and the importance of science in policy making. Some politicians framed science as the ultimate truth and only basis for decision making with the clear aim of reducing animal suffering, while others framed science as diverse in itself and as one source of many on which decisions can be based.

Economic considerations also played a role. Since the Netherlands is an export country, economic considerations are important when decisions about food production are being taken. It is unknown how many animals are slaughtered without stunning, but in proportion to the industrial meat production this share is rather small. However, liberal parties may have been afraid of a spill over of animal welfare regulation towards the entire meat industry.

Except for a small fraction of the Dutch Parliament that tended to seek its certainty in Islam criticism, and another small fraction that had a specific focus on animal welfare, all other parties struggled with taking position on each of these dimensions of the problem. This was further complicated by the involvement of the Jewish community. The proposed prohibition was experienced as a reminder of the Second World War as non-stunned ritual slaughter had only been abolished in the Netherlands between 1940 and 1945. Another cultural issue that became especially explicit since 9/11 is the growing xenophobia in multicultural societies, especially focusing on Islam. While this factor has not been openly mentioned in the debate, some interviewees said that probably there would have been less hesitation to the prohibition if it would have only concerned Islamic food practices.

Through frame analysis, this article displayed how cultural diversity is expressed in the contestation of value claims regarding non-stunned ritual slaughter. The analysis shows that not one single answer is possible to the question what determines the space given to religious minorities to substantiate their identities. Although a political majority decision was taken at the end of a long trajectory, this was a compromise that leaves the controversy with its related uncertainties still open. The controversy may flare up again, also in other contexts than a parliamentary debate.

Our research focused on food-related tensions of multiculturalism in a specific context: the Dutch parliamentary debate. Future research may explore these tensions and the factors enabling space for conflicting value claims on different levels of society, for example, in the local context of multicultural neighbourhoods or in the media. An analysis of related thematic issues is also suggested. Such a theme might be the governance of certification of Halal food, which also relates to a debate about public and private considerations of responsibility. Finally, a comparison of the Dutch political debate with political debates in other multicultural societies is suggested to increase our insights into the relationships between multiculturalism and the politics of ritual slaughter.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Biographical notes

Laura Kurth is a PhD researcher at Maastricht University (International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development). Her main research interest concerns the role of religion in multicultural societies, multicultural policy making and the governance of religious food markets.

Pieter Glasbergen is honorary professor at Maastricht University (International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development) and emeritus Professor of Environmental Studies, Policy and Management at Utrecht University and the Dutch Open University. He chairs the Maastricht-Utrecht-Nijmegen Programme on Partnerships. His main expertise is in governance, planning and policy issues related to sustainable development.

References

Bader

(2007) Secularism or Democracy? Associational Governance of Religious Diversity. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Benford

(1993) ‘You Could Be the Hundredth Monkey’: Collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement. The Sociological Quarterly 34: 195–216.

Bergeaud-Blackler

(2007) New challenges for Islamic ritual slaughter: A European perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33: 965–980.

Campbell

(2002) Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38.

Cantarero

Espeitx

Lacruz

et al . (2013) Human food preferences and cultural identity: The case of Aragon (Spain). International Journal of Psychology 48: 881–890.

Cenci-Goga

Sechi

Cuccurese

et al . (2013) Religious slaughter: Data from surveys and spot-check visits in Italy and animal welfare issues. Society & Animals 21: 459–488.

Council of Europe (1950) The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome: Council of Europe.

Dewulf

Gray

Putnam

et al . (2009) Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations 62: 155–193.

Eerste Kamer (n.d.) Taken en positie Eerste Kamer. Available at: http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/taken_en_positie_eerste_kamer (accessed 15 August 2014).

10.

Eerste Kamer (Upper House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011a) Voorstel van wet van het lid Thieme tot wijziging van de Gezondheids-en welzijnswet voor dieren in verband met het invoeren van een verplichte voorafgaande bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Memorie van antwoord: Bill from member Thieme proposing the change of the health and welfare law concerning the introduction of mandatory pre-stunning for ritual slaughter. Statement of response]. Kamerstuk 31571, nr. C.

11.

Eerste Kamer (Upper House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011b) Bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Stunning for ritual slaughter]. Handelingen 2011–2012, nr.12, item 2/7/9, 13 December.

12.

Eerste Kamer (Upper House of the Dutch Parliament) (2012) Bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Stunning for ritual slaughter]. Handelingen 2011–2012, nr.32, item 5, 12 June.

13.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

14.

Fischler

(1988) Food, self and identity. Social Science Information/sur les sciences sociales 27: 275–292.

15.

Government of the Netherlands (2012) The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2008. Available at: http://www.government.nl/documents-and-publications/regulations/2012/10/18/the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-2008.html (accessed 30 August 2014).

16.

Grandin

Regenstein

(1994) Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion for meat scientists. Meat Focus International 3: 115–123.

17.

Havinga

(2008) Ritueel slachten: Spanning tussen religieuze tolerantie en dierenbescherming. In: Böcker

Havinga

Minderhoud

et al . (eds) Migratierecht en rechtssociologie, gebundeld in Kees’ studies. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp.211–220.

18.

Kijlstra

Lambooij

(2008) Ritueel slachten en het welzijn van dieren. Rapport 161. van Wageningen UR: Animal Science Group, pp.1–34.

19.

Lerner

Rabello

(2006) The prohibition of ritual slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and freedom of religion of minorities. Journal of Law and Religion 22: 1–62.

20.

Levine

(2011) New Zealand’s ban on kosher slaughtering. Ethnology 50: 209–222.

21.

Mintz

Du Bois

(2002) The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 99–119.

22.

Nadon

(2014) The secular basis of the separation of Church and State: Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville. Perspectives on Political Science 43: 21–30.

23.

Nakyinsige

Che Man

Aghwan

et al . (2013) Stunning and animal welfare from Islamic and scientific perspectives. Meat Science 95: 352–361.

24.

ProDemos (2012) Politiek in Nederland: Basisinformatie over democratie en bestuur: ProDemos. Amsterdam: Huis voor democratie en rechtsstaat, p.95.

25.

Raad van State (2008) Advies W11.08.0398/IV. Available at: http://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/zoeken-in-adviezen/tekst-advies.html?id=8873 (accessed 14 August 2014).

26.

Regenstein

Chaudry

Regenstein

(2003) The kosher and halal food laws. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2: 111–127.

27.

Rein

Schön

(1996) Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy 9: 85–104.

28.

Rietveld

(2013) Debating multiculturalism and national identity in Britain: Competing frames. Ethnicities 14: 50–71.

29.

Rosen

(2004) Physiological insights into Shechita. Veterinary Record 154: 759–765.

30.

Roy

(2007) Secularism Confronts Islam. New York: Columbia University Press.

31.

Salamano

Cuccurese

Poeta

et al . (2013) Acceptability of electrical stunning and post-cut stunning among Muslim communities: A possible dialogue. Society & Animals 21: 443–458.

32.

Sardoč

(2011) Citizenship and civic equality: Tensions, problems and challenges. Annales 21: 225–236.

33.

Scholten

(2011) Constructing Dutch immigrant policy: Research–policy relations and immigrant integration policy-making in the Netherlands. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 13: 75–92.

34.

Semetko

Valkenburg

(2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50: 93–109.

35.

Shmueli

Elliott

Kaufman

(2006) Frame changes and the management of intractable conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24: 207–218.

36.

Sleegers

(2007) In debat over Nederland. Veranderingen in het discours over de multiculturele samenleving en nationale identiteit. Amsterdam: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, pp.1–100.

37.

Smith

(2000) Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis

Judd

(eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.313–335.

38.

Smith

(2007) ‘Cruelty of the Worst Kind’: Religious slaughter, xenophobia, and the German greens. Central European History 40: 89–115.

39.

Snow

Benford

(1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1: 197–217.

40.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2008) Voorstel van wet van het lid Thieme tot wijziging van de Gezondheids-en welzijnswet voor dieren in verband met het invoeren van een verplichte voorafgaande bedwelming bij ritueel slachten. Voorstel van wet [Bill from member Thieme proposing the change of the health and welfare law concerning the introduction of mandatory pre-stunning for ritual slaughter. Draft law]. Kamerstuk 31571 nr 2, 5 September.

41.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011a) Bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Stunning for ritual slaughter]. Handelingen 2010–2011, nr.54, item 4, 17 February.

42.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011b) Bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Stunning for ritual slaughter]. Handelingen 2010–2011, nr.73, item 2, 13 April.

43.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011c) Bedwelming bij ritueel slachten [Stunning for ritual slaughter]. Handelingen 2010–2011, nr.96, item 16, 22 June.

44.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011d) Voorstel van wet van het lid Thieme tot wijziging van de Gezondheids-en welzijnswet voor dieren in verband met het invoeren van een verplichte voorafgaande bedwelming bij ritueel slachten. Amendment van het lid Ormel [Bill from member Thieme proposing the change of the health and welfare law concerning the introduction of mandatory pre-stunning for ritual slaughter. Amendment of member Ormel]. Kamerstuk 31571, nr 11, 28 June.

45.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011e) Voorstel van wet van het lid Thieme tot wijziging van de Gezondheids-en welzijnswet voor dieren in verband met het invoeren van een verplichte voorafgaande bedwelming bij ritueel slachten. Amendment van het lid van Veldhoven [Bill from member Thieme proposing the change of the health and welfare law concerning the introduction of mandatory pre-stunning for ritual slaughter. Amendment of member van Veldhoven]. Kamerstuk 31571, nr 19, 28 June.

46.

Tweede Kamer (Lower House of the Dutch Parliament) (2011f) Voorstel van wet van het lid Thieme tot wijziging van de Gezondheids-en welzijnswet voor dieren in verband met het invoeren van een verplichte voorafgaande bedwelming bij ritueel slachten. Stemmingen [Bill from member Thieme proposing the change of the health and welfare law concerning the introduction of mandatory pre-stunning for ritual slaughter. Voting]. Handelingen 2010–2011, nr.98, item, 25: 28 June.

47.

Van Hulst

Yanow

(2014) From policy ‘Frames’ to ‘Framing’: Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration. Epub ahead of print 30 May. DOI: 10.1177/0275074014533142.

48.

Van Waarden

Van Dalen

(2013) Halal and the moral construction of quality: How religious norms turn a mass product into a singularity. In: Beckert

Musselin

(eds) Constructing Quality: The Classification of Goods in Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.197–222.

49.

Velarde

Rodriguez

Dalmau

et al . (2014) Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected countries. Meat Science 96: 278–287.

50.

Von Holleben

von Wenzlawowicz

Gregory

et al . (2010) Report on good and adverse practices – Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint of veterinary sciences. DIALREL, pp.1–81. Available at: http://www.dialrel.eu/images/veterinary-concerns.pdf

51.

Wallet

(2012) Ritueel slachten en godsdienstvrijheid in een seculiere samenleving. Religie & Samenleving 7: 166–183.

52.

Weller

Turkon

(2015) Contextualizing the immigrant experience: The role of food and foodways in identity maintenance and formation for first- and second-generation Latinos in Ithaca, New York. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 54: 57–73.

53.

Wohlrab-Sahr

(2004) Integrating different pasts, avoiding different futures? Recent conflicts about Islamic religious practice and their judicial solutions. Time & Society 13: 51–70.

54.

Zoethout

(2013) Ritual slaughter and the freedom of religion: Some reflections on a stunning matter. Human Rights Quarterly 35: 651–672.