So we decide that something is wrong in part A, yet decide to make an exception for ritualistic slaughter in part B? Bizarre logic.
It's ritualistic slaughter if done in a way that causes minimal suffering to the animal, from what I can tell.
I think Section 3 might present some difficulties... but it's good legislation on balance. Aye.
Who gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate form of ritual slaughter? Why do some religions get to slaughter a special way, while others are banned from it?
It's a bizarre standard. If you've decided that it is unnecessarily cruel to kill a conscious animal, than the only logical solution is to ban that form of slaughter.
