Please try not to be too offended by this, but as a matter of principle (nothing personal against Hindus or animals), I feel that the slaughter of a sick animal, after serious legal review, following an order of the elected government of the land, was the right outcome.
For those of you not familiar with the story, Shambo, a sacred Hindu bull, living in a shrine in Wales, had become infected with bovine tuberculosis (BTB). In Great Britain all such infected animals are routinely slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. Welsh Hindu monks and supporters tried to prevent this from happening, but the Court of Appeal ruled that the slaughter should go ahead.
Those wishing to save Shambo’s life had three main arguments. First, they said it was not necessary as they had found a farm in India willing to take the animal and a boat willing to transport it. Secondly, they argued that all life was sacred. Thirdly, (and perhaps their trump card) they proclaimed that the decision violated their basic human rights to religious freedom and offended their religious sensibilities.
My problem with the first argument is that once you allow one exception to the rule you are immediately faced with thousands of other good claims, and with thousands of infected animals travelling around the world, you are doing little to stop the disease and doing everything to encourage its spread. With regards to the second argument, it is entirely against the culture of the land that routinely slaughters animals to eat or to prevent sickness and unnecessary suffering. If the Hindu monks wish to change the culture of the land, they are free to argue their case, be evangelical about their religion, make peaceful protest, become elected to Parliament and try to change the law, but they have no right to break the law.
Regardless of the first two arguments, it was really the third that worried me most. I want people to have human rights and religious freedom, but as I argued in relation to terrorism (see entry for Tuesday, July 3, 2007) rights cannot be taken as absolute or in isolation. Because we live in society, any rights have to be moderated by the well-being of others. They can be pushed, but not beyond the limits of what society can tolerate. I cannot claim a religious defence, if that defence violates the consensus of those around me.
So for example, I could argue, that when I die, I want my wife to be killed and to be cremated with me because that is my religion and I have a right to express that. Clearly such a view violates the rights of others, and, in this country, society has outlawed such practices - recognising that restrictions have to be placed on traditional religious customs. Allowing a sick animal to live, not only increases the risk of unnecessary suffering for the animal concerned, but potentially jeopardizes the well-fare of other animals and farmers. This religious right potentially damages others and the courts have ruled that the greater good should place a curb on a religious freedom.
Shambo is (or was) clearly important to a minority Hindu community in Wales, but the rights of such a religious community have to be weighed against the legal rulings of the elected government of the majority. Perhaps one outcome from this might be a healthy determination for some from this minority to become determinedly involved in changing views through greater political engagement.
Here’s the main problem: the manner in which the law was enforced violated the law (EU human rights provision) It wasn’t necessary to do such. Individuals were willing to donate resources to acheive whatever level of quarantine was necessary and using the animal as a test subject for treatment options would be both beneficial to the masses and knowledge in general as well as satisfy the precepts of a religious minority whose only real objection was against unecessary sacrifice of a living creatures life, a very basic and profound principle of their faith. The main obstacles to an enlightened solution were, as they always are, greed, anger, and stupidity.
[...] without spirit.. Just came across this post by Thinking Man on the bull, Shambo by name, that was ordered to be slaughtered since it [...]
In response to James, August 3, 11:35 am.
James, I am at a loss to see why you consider a careful legal consideration to be motivated by “anger, greed, and stupidity”.