4 philosophers have been interviewed by BBC to answer this question
The Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature have signed an agreement this week to strengthen the cooperation between the two organisations in minimising the illegal killing of and related illegal trade in elephants and other CITES-listed flagship species in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific region.
The applicant Julita Boucher (French) has submitted a EU Petition No 1085/2014 on the abolition of Council Regulation No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing
Summary of the Petition:
In her very detailed petition, the petitioner demands the abolition of this regulation since it authorises in its article 4 the killing of animals without prior stunning on religious grounds. According to her, this measure breaches the main purpose of the regulation, which is to protect the animals from pain and fear during the killing process. She mentions that the internal inconsistency of this regulation has already been underlined by the Economic and Social Committee1 in its opinion on the proposal of this regulation, and that it also provided modern solutions to combine religious rituals with prior stunning. She estimates it all the more regrettable as there are abuses of this derogation for ritual purposes, with a generalisation of this practice even for the meat destined to the majority of citizens (without an adequate labelling informing them of this practice), as a resolution of the Parliament stated in 2012 (art.49).2 Finally, she mentions as an example of balancing animal protection and religious practices the European Court of Human Rights case law.3
3 In particular the ruling Cha'are Shalow Ve Tsedek v. France (2000)
Please find here the complete text: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-564.889&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01
21 February 2014
Marlene Mizzi (S&D)
11 February 2014
Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE)
11 February 2014
Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)
A high emotion has been raised this weekend in a Zoo in Denmark, after the slaughter of "Marius", a 18-month young giraffe. Despite a petition asking to save the giraffe, the Zoo decided to slaughter it. Then, the giraffe get an authopsy in front of visitors, and the remains of the animals have been given to the Lions.
The giraffe has been killed because Zoos want to prevent "in breeding" and want to increase genetical diversity. Consequently, the animals borned in the Zoo are regularly killed if no other zoo can adopt them. This is the fate of lots of unwanted animals in Zoos. The EU Zoo Directive is not prohibiting the killing of unwanted healthy animals and also insists on the importance to increase genetic diversity. Moreover, the protection of endangered species laid down by the CITES is not applying to animals borned in captivity.
The scandal here is bigger because there has been a high mobilisation in all the country to try to save the giraffe, including an offer of 500,000€. DEspite this, the Zoo decided to kill the animal.
This scandal is raising once more the issue about the "right to live" and "right to kill". Killing healthy animals cannot be called euthanasia, as it does not aim to end the suffering of an uncureable animal.
Please also consult the position paper of VIER PFOTEN / FOUR PAWS on the definition of euthanasia here: VP Position o Euthanasia and killing.
23 January 2014
Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)
The German state Northrhine-Westfalia has prohibited the killing of the male surplus chickens.