"…Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect, at a time when humanity had not begun to think in terms of animal rights. Quite conveniently, some prefer to ignore the origin of the values they claim to defend. If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport. But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter.…"

WJC's Lisa Rahmani testifying before the UN this week

Put simply, the World Jewish Congress (WJC) lied to the UN earlier this week about shechita (ritual slaughter) and circumcision.

Here is the WJC statement in full, followed by an explanation of the falsehoods in it:

Bans on practices such as shechita, circumcision infringe religious freedom, WJC tells UN rights body 12 March 2014

GENEVA/NEW YORK – The World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Wednesday called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognize as violations of religious freedom any bans or limitations on the right to practice Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter of animals and male circumcision.



“We call on the governments of all UN member states to stop any attempts to abridge these crucial religious freedoms,” said WJC CEO Robert Singer. “We hope that the UN Human Rights Council, via its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, will issue a clear statement that bans or limitations on religious slaughter and circumcision are attacks on fundamental liberties, and that the affirmation of those liberties will serve to deter such attacks.”



In a statement delivered before the UN Human Rights Council currently in session in Geneva, WJC decried the “increasing number of government actions that seek to condemn and ban these religious practices” and called on UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief Heiner Bielefeldt “to consider limitations on ritual slaughter and circumcision as violations of freedom of religion in his next report to the Council.” Bielefeldt is expected to complete his report next year.



The WJC statement was delivered by Lisa Rahmani, a member of the WJC’s Jewish Diplomatic Corps program. Originally from France, Rahmani now lives and practices law in Tel Aviv.



In his concluding remarks at the end of the discussion in the Human Rights Council, Bielefeldt acknowledged that "issues like male circumcision are part of freedom of religion."



Statement delivered by Lisa Rahmani [to the United Nations] on behalf of the World Jewish Congress



I speak today on behalf of the World Jewish Congress, an international organization representing more than 100 Jewish communities worldwide. The Word Jewish Congress thanks the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for his learned, thought-provoking and practical report.



The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right of individuals and communities to manifest their religion or beliefs freely. Ritual slaughter, known as shechita, and the tradition of circumcision, which dates back thousands of years, are cornerstones of Jewish religious practice.



However, today we are witnessing an increasing number of government actions that seek to condemn and ban these religious practices.



Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect, at a time when humanity had not begun to think in terms of animal rights. Quite conveniently, some prefer to ignore the origin of the values they claim to defend.



If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport.



But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter – be it shechita practiced by Jews, or halal practiced by Muslims.



In the same way, it is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons.



Respectfully, we call on the Special Rapporteur to recognize that these practices are forms of religious expression; to recognize that they are not trumped by other values; and to ask him to consider limitations on ritual slaughter and circumcision as violations of freedom of religion in his next report to the Council.



Thank you, Mr. President.

The false and misleading claims in order of appearance:

1. Judaism was the first culture to teach that animals, and even plants, should be treated with respect. In reality, many cultures had – and have – traditions of humane treatment of animals. Native peoples all over the world have ancient oral traditions of respect for animal life and for respecting nature. The idea that Judaism was the first culture to do this is false and comes from viewing the world through the narrow prism of Orthodox religious dogma that sees the Torah as the first document (so to speak) of the world with everything else being an outgrowth of it. (Another example of this false outlook is the commonly held haredi-Orthodox notion that Hebrew was the first language of the world. It very clearly was not.)

2. If opponents of shechita really cared about animals, they would have banned, for example, the cooking of live seafood in pots of boiling water; they would have banned force-feeding of geese and ducks; they would have banned hunting for sport. But they did not. Instead they chose to attack ritual slaughter – be it shechita practiced by Jews… Here Rahamani shows her ignorance or her dishonesty. Halakha very clearly states that fish do not need shechita and can be killed in any way that is convenient. Halakha also allows cruelty to animals if that cruelty benefits humans. That is why (in part) that fish can be left to suffocate and die rather than be humanely slaughtered. It is also why the throat-ripping at Agriprocessors kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa was allowed by literally more than a dozen haredi and centrist Orthodox rabbis, and that caused animals immense suffering. Even so, their meat was ruled kosher both before and after the fact. Force-feeding geese is allowed under many understandings of halakha, and kosher fois gras is available to buy. If kosher law is so humane, why is all this so? Lastly, Rahamani uses a cheap debater's trick here. There is no indepependet move to ban ritual slaughter that exists in some vacuum. European countries have in fact taken many steps to ensure humane slaughter and to support animal welfare. They mandate pre-stunning of animals to minimize pain during slaughter. They have instituted animal handling regulations to prevent the abuse of animals awaiting slaughter, and they have instituted other regulations and laws to try to ensure animal welfare elsewhere, as well – for example, laws banning abuse of domestic animals and pets. Regulation of shechita and halal slaughter is not a stand-alone item; it is the most recent part of package that also impacts non-religious slaughter, farming, ranching and the treatment of your neighborhood cat.

3.[I]t is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons. Halakha not only allows, it commands people to break halakha in order to save lives or prevent suffering. Therefore, under halakha, even if circumcision had not been commanded and was not a mitzvah, Jews would be allowed to circumcise their children for medical reasons. Past that, saving a life or protecting life trumps most standard laws and conventions. It is illegal to swim in a certain lake but it is not illegal to jump in to try to save a drowning child; murder is illegal, but it is legal to shoot and kill someone who is threatening you with deadly force. In other words, circumcision for medical reasons performed by trained physicians in a sterile medical environment and following best practices is far different than a mohel performing the operation in a synagogue or home in a non-sterile environment with no professional backup to help if something goes wrong and no anesthetic given to the baby, not only because of the reason the circumcision is being done but because of the method it is done with.

For the WJC to have allowed such deceitful and illogical testimony to given in the name of the Jewish people to the UN is astounding.

The WJC owes all of us and the UN an apology, and it needs to remove Rahamani from her position immediately.

Lies will not save shechita and circumcision from restrictions or bans.