Ritual slaughter in Brussels: the Brussels Parliament votes against the obligation to stun

The vote had been announced as “historic”. The Brussels deputies rejected this Friday, June 17 the proposal for an order tabled by Défi, Groen and the Open VLD aimed at prohibiting slaughter without stunning.

In practice, the Brussels deputies confirmed the rejection of the text already pronounced in committee, with 42 votes for, 38 against, and 8 abstentions. The order is therefore buried. Slaughtering without stunning will continue in the slaughterhouses of the capital, in this case in Anderlecht.

It is first of all a failure for animal welfare. The majority of left-wing parties voted for animal suffering, whether we like it or not. I don’t understand this choice.points Jonathan de Patoul, deputy Challenge at the origin of the deposit of the text.

©IPM

His party, however, bears real responsibility for the failure of his own proposal. Only six of the ten deputies Challenge voted for mandatory stunning. If the parliamentary group had voted en bloc, the text would have passed with two votes in advance (42/40) and without needing the vote of Vlaams Belang.

the PS and the MR had clearly announced the color on the voting instructions in their ranks. The Socialists rejected the text with 14 votes against mandatory stunning and 2 for. At MR, 12 deputies voted in favour. Viviane Teitelbaum abstained. “This is the most complicated choice of my political life.she launched, moved. My identity is multiple. I am a woman, Jewish, feminist, liberal, etc. This debate could suggest that to be a good secular and liberal, one should favor one choice over another. I can’t.“Latifa Aït-Baala, deputy MR, did not show up for the vote.

The vote also had consequences for Fouad Ahidar (One.brussels Vooruit), who ignored his party’s instructions. As soon as the vote was known, the president of the Flemish Socialists, Conner Rousseau, announced his exclusion from the political office of the party.

Les Engagés and Écolo had left the freedom of choice to their elected representatives. Both groups overwhelmingly voted against mandatory stunning. In Wallonia, on a similar text, all the deputies of these same political parties had voted for the obligation…

The position of Committed takes the opposite view of the party manifesto, adopted a few weeks ago and which pleads for stunning. None of his deputies voted for it.

“I am not an Islamo-leftist”

“Those who voted against the text or abstained are not Islamo-leftists. And I am not an Islamo-leftistassured Céline Frémault from the podium. This text is the result of inadequate, hasty work in a fractured society. A debate that cleaves instead of uniting.” The leader of the Engaged group specifies: “ I agree with Olivier Maingain: a hasty vote would be an irreparable political fault.”

Eco voted with 9 votes against the ordinance, 5 for and 1 abstention, while an internal balance was expected. “This discussion confronts two legitimate values: a certain idea of ​​the ethical duties we have with regard to animal welfare, and public freedomssaid John Pitseys, Ecolo group leader. We talked a lot. Some of us have changed our minds, because of the terms of the debate.”

Olivier Maingain is not a Brussels deputy, but his shadow hovered over Parliament this Friday…

Several deputies, and not the least, believe that the position taken by the mayor of Woluwe-Saint-Lambert has prompted some elected officials to review their vote. The former president of Défi had indeed called on his party not to pass the text if it had to depend on the voices of the far right. A vision contested by his successor, François De Smet, but which infused.

This vote looks like a political slap in the face for Challenge, which took the initiative to table the text via Parliament, after the failure of Bernard Clerfayt’s attempt to impose it on the government. But the Minister in charge of Animal Welfare refutes it. “It’s not a slap in the face. We have created a social debate and Parliament has spoken. We had nothing to lose since this project was not to be carried out in the government agreement. But the question will reappear.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.