Shechita Is Legalized Cruelty

by Bernard Weckmann

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 18

No right-thinking man or woman would have a problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is my understanding that freedom of religion is of paramount importance in a society that bases itself on the rule of law and claims to be a democracy – such as Australia, a signatory to the above declaration.

I hold it as self-evident, however, that in a fair and just society such freedom does NOT extend to granting special privileges and dispensations to any religious group/s to do what is forbidden to all others on penalty of fines and/or imprisonment! It seems, however, that in many countries, Australia amongst them, some humans are deemed more equal than others and deserving of greater rights; to wit:

The Queensland Animal Care And Protection Act 2001 states in Section 18, Subsection 2:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person is taken to be cruel to an animal if the person does any of the following to the animal:

 (g) kills it in a way that

(i) is inhumane; or

(ii) causes it not to die quickly; or

(iii) causes it to die in unreasonable pain

The practice of shechitah/halal slaughter – the slaughter of an animal without prior stunning – is inhumane as it has been proved to cause a prolonged and painful death and thus constitutes an offence under the above-named Act.

An exemption from the requirement of stunning before slaughter on the grounds of freedom of religion is provided for in the above-named Act. Although I have not checked relevant legislation in the other States I think it is safe to assume that it is similarly worded.

Jews and Moslems are the only ones that benefit from this exemption and it is thus reasonable to conclude that it was created especially for them. No, let’s not beat around the bush! And to hell with political correctness: it was created exclusively for Jews! They pay well I guess! It is only Jews who everywhere clamour for acceptance and equality and as soon as they have achieved it start to vociferously demand special treatment!

Moslems are simply riding piggyback. Islamic authorities are generally compassionate and willing to comply with the law’s requirements. In a letter to the R.S.P.C.A. the Imam of Woking Mosque wrote on 4th September, 1928, that in his opinion stunning does not conflict with the instructions given in the Koran.

I have no doubts, based on my personal experience with Moslems, that they, unlike Jews, can be reasoned with; to wit:

“Muslims in New Zealand and elsewhere have already adopted stunning prior to slaughter. They use a form of electrical stunning which animals quickly recover from if not slaughtered, proving that the stunned animal is “healthy”, thereby qualifying as halal.”

It is only Jews who stubbornly persist in the barbaric practice of shechita (amongst many other unsavoury practices) while arrogantly presenting themselves to the nations of the world as nothing less than a light, a beacon of righteousness and justice, the moral and intellectual vanguard of the human race.

But then again, what kind of compassion can you expect of a people that callously subjects its new-born baby boys to the cruelty of ritual genital mutilation without anaesthesia.

Being thrown to the ground and having one’s throat cut from ear to ear and then slowly bleeding to death must be an excruciatingly painful experience for any living creature. You do not need to be a veterinarian in order to understand that! Common sense and empathy ought to be enough!

But if it is expert opinions you want here are some:

“In 1933, a questionnaire was sent to 605 Dutch Veterinary Surgeons, with the result that 500 (five hundred out of 605!) 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.”

“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 above quotes are from:

The Legalised Cruelty Of Shechita:

The Jewish Method Of Cattle-Slaughter

by Arnold Leese

This booklet was published decades ago but is as relevant now as it was then. It can be downloaded here: Shechita


Some would claim that Leese was a fascist, an apologist for Hitler and National Socialism which only increases my respect for him. It was Hitler’s Germany, after all, that legislated the most enlightened animal protection laws.



The 30-day period which I granted to the Federal Minister for Agriculture (Barnaby Joyce) and to the Attorney-General (George Brandis) to respond to my request to show cause exactly why Jews and Moslems should be exempt from the provisions of the law which requires stunning has now expired. I think that this period was adequate. They have chosen to remain silent.

Their silence in this matter is their tacit confirmation that no lawful grounds exist to grant anyone a special dispensation from the requirements of the law.

Their failure to show lawful cause is furthermore tacit admission that cruelty to animal has been legalized and cruelty-to-animal offences are tacitly aided and abetted by the government on the pretext of “freedom of religion”.

I cannot single-handedly eliminate this revolting practice – but I can and will unapologetically point the finger at its benighted practitioners, the Jews!

I do not know – although I could venture an educated guess! – whom the politicians and the public servants in the State and Federal governments in Australia serve. And it’s not the Australian people!

I would love to say to Australian politicians: “Shame on you!” But I know that would be a waste of breath. To feel shame would require a conscience.

It was Napoleon Buonaparte who said: “In politics stupidity is not an obstacle”. Let me add a thought of my own: “In politics lack of a conscience is not an obstacle either!”

Our Local, State and Federal politicians routinely prove both of the above statements correct! But in order to put an end to the barbaric practice of shechita we do not need to wait for politicians to change the law. Come to think of it: do we actually ever need these clowns for anything?

Mr Leese offers a solution which would allow the RSPCA, if it were so inclined, to act without having to wait for any changes in the law. It would be as workable in Australia today as it would have been in the UK of his time. Here is how:

The above-mentioned Act – and all similar Acts – allows shechita only if the meat is intended to be food for Jews. The laws of kashrut (dietary laws) demand that a certain nerve and some forbidden fats are removed from the carcass before it qualifies as kosher, a process called “porging”. This is a time-consuming task and not every butcher is skilled enough to perform it. But as it is a sizeable portion of the carcass it is not simply discarded but sold on to be used as food by non-Jews.

Not only is this morally reprehensible because the true nature of the meat is not disclosed to the non-Jewish consumer which thus takes away the consumer’s informed choice but it is a clear violation of the law which specifies that the meat can only be used as food for Jews.

The RSPCA need only send inspectors into Jewish slaughterhouses to keep a watchful eye on the shochet (Jewish slaughterer) in order to ascertain whether the carcass is porged.

If the carcass is not porged – that’s the reality in the majority of cases! – the slaughterer is breaking the law as part of the carcass is now going to be consumed by non-Jews. Leese thought that enough prosecutions could be secured in this way in just one day of observation that this revolting practice could end kosher slaughter in no time at all and I agree with him!

If only the RSPCA had the will to do this! I feel sure that it would find it has the full support of the majority of Australians!

So what are we waiting for?

The video below has two segments dealing with the Jew’s blood obsession: circumcision and shechita – if you have the stomach to deal with such barbaric practises! The footage on circumcision starts at 18 mins 50 secs and is followed by the footage on shechita.

Sorry, the video below has been removed by the motherfucking kike censor/s!


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.