News updates
Current Affairs, Loose Ends July 17th, 2007This week the High Courts’ have ruled on two cases that we discussed on this site.
In Cardiff, the High Court ruled that killing Shambo the Bull was a breach of its owners human rights and that the Welsh Assembly acted unlawfully in issuing the order. It is expected that the Welsh Assembly will appeal against the ruling this Friday, however the appeal will be met at the taxpayers expense.
In London, the High Court ruled that Lydia Playfoot had not been unlawfully discriminated against by her school, when they refused to teach her on account of her wearing a chastity ring. The wearing of jewellery is contrary to school rules, except when necessary for ‘manifesting’ religious belief (such as a Muslim headscarf or a Sikh bracelet).
This post is just an update on the news, relevent to prior discussions. My commentary and analysis is reserved to the comments section.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Shambo.
I had argued for saving the life of Shambo the Bull on two specific grounds.
1) The test used on the bull that proposed that it was a possibility that the bull was suffering from Bovine TB is considered a somewhat subjective test, and that other tests (including the taking of blood samples) which are used in other countries could provide a more definitive diagnosis.
2) As the bull is isolated from the herd, not intended for entry into the food-chain, and is tended to by experienced cattle farmers and observed by vets, if the diagnosis is unsatisfactory then other approaches, including isolation may be preferable rather than slaughter. Especially when considering that slaughter is unpalatable to the religious beliefs of the community.
Some objections are raised to the second point. Amongst them farmers who have suffered numerous cattle culls over the years fear that their herds may still be at risk (however minimal) from transmission. And, to paraphrase another farmer what would the court do if he decided to start worshipping his herd in order to protect them.
I will only address the issue (for reasons of brevity) from the court ruling. The Judge surmises on the basis of expert evidence that the risk of disease transmission, to another animal or to another human is so minimal that it is not a concern. He proposes that the system of testing cattle for bovine TB be reappraised so that certainty may override suspicion, especially when in this case an objective test is available and would make a diagnosis that is proportionally to the minimal risk of disease transmission maximumally certain.
He also proposes that a review be undertaken to put in place a means of isolating and treating the suspected case in those circumstances where slaughter is undesireable and where its enacting would have minimal impact on the issue of bovine and human health in general.
I am (subjectively) pleased at the result, but somewhat dissappointed that it is being presented as supporting the ‘right’ of the hindu to hold an animal sacred. Especially as there are legitimate questions concerning the vetinary science and protocols being used here.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
The Silver Ring Thing.
In my original post I stated that I was somewhat uncomfortable at the case proceeding for 3 reasons.
1) It seemed like a propaganda case, being pursued not for a persons right to wear a symbolic item of jewellery, but as an attempt to challenge the right for institutions not to discriminate against a world view.
2) The headmaster of the school correctly stated that the wearing of this ring was not an essential element of the persons faith (as understood in respect to Christianity) and that therefore to demand parity with those religious groups where it is a necessary manifest symbol of their faith is wrong.
3) Although I disagree with school uniforms and their usefulness, rather conventionally I defend the right of a school governed by headmaster and lay commitee (the board of governors) to enact rules appropriate to discipline and dress. And believe that where those rules are openly published and enforced it is incumbent upon parents and children to respect those rules (even when unjust). In other words the parents should be aware of the rules on entry. Only in circumstances where removing a child will cause severe disruption should a compromise be considered.
Although I am dissapointed in the outcome of this case, as I feel ‘chastity’ movements are not inherently bad, and quite possibly are good when combined with sensible and thorough sex-education and when they are movements that lead by example rather than by argument. I nonetheless feel that as the law is, and as the situation stands the outcome of the case was correct.
It is perhaps generally a good ruling, circumstantially an unjust one and semantically an accurate one. But such is the nature of many debates when presented to the high court for a legal ruling.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I want to make some comments on the recent ruling regarding Shambo. Although the Judge is not an expert on veterinary issues, they are good at assessing arguments. His conclusions may hold some weight – unless we can find an argument they did not address in court. Remember they are working in a legal framework which is a collection of agreed rules (and may or may not be just). I have taken quotes from the high court ruling document.
First, I want to welcome the ruling from the high court from the perspective of the interests of private individuals over state control. On the other hand:
”The test used on the bull that proposed that it was a possibility that the bull was suffering from Bovine TB is considered a somewhat subjective test, and that other tests (including the taking of blood samples) which are used in other countries could provide a more definitive diagnosis.”
This issue was not contended in court because both sides agreed the skin test was reliable. “Although the Community do not accept the 99.9% figure used by the Government”… “they do accept that the chances of a false positive result from this test are very small.”
If you are referring to the gamma-interferon blood test, “Dr Glossop’s own evidence was that this test is less specific and more sensitive, i.e. the test has more false positives and less false negatives”. A skin test positive would have an extremely high chance of being confirmed by the gamma-interferon blood test.
”The Judge surmises on the basis of expert evidence that the risk of disease transmission, to another animal or to another human is so minimal that it is not a concern.”
The lawyer representing the community was quoted as saying this, but the judge did not conclude this (as far as I can tell).
“He proposes that the system of testing cattle for bovine TB be reappraised so that certainty may override suspicion, especially when in this case an objective test is available and would make a diagnosis that is proportionally to the minimal risk of disease transmission maximumally certain.”
I can’t find any mention of the testing being in doubt in the court ruling. Quote please?
“I am (subjectively) pleased at the result, but somewhat dissappointed that it is being presented as supporting the ‘right’ of the hindu to hold an animal sacred.”
I think you mean one of two things:
Are you staying, literally, their right to hold the cow sacred was being questioned? That was not the issue under debate, nor can I see anyone making that point.
More likely, you are disappointed that it is being portrayed as a challenge to their religious belief that Shambo should not be killed.
So to present this as the community asserting their religious rights is totally justified.
“Especially as there are legitimate questions concerning the vetinary science and protocols being used here.”
I don’t see that mentioned in the high court judgment.
I am slightly mystified how you could comment on the judge’s ruling and not mention the European Convention Article 9 or the discussion on protection on public health!! That was totally central to the judge’s ruling! I am assuming you have had time to read the document I referenced about – otherwise ignore this paragraph.
The judge ruled against the Welsh ministers on two main grounds (see paragraph 90):
1) The ministers did not consider Article 9 was in force when they ordered the slaughter, so could not have given any consideration to paragraph 2 of the article concerning the balancing of religious rights with “the public interest”.
2) The government did not adequately establish the link between the slaughter of Shambo, to the control of bTb, to the protection of public health.
Both of these are procedural grounds in my view and with proper consideration, the ministers could, in theory, come to the same conclusion. “Therefore, although I [the judge] will quash these decisions relating to the proposed imminent slaughter of Shambo, having done so it will not only be in the power of the Government to reconsider this matter…”
I understand there is an appeal against the judges ruling but it seems the government did rush the decision and they will need to go back and reconsider. If I had to make a choice, I would value the lives of the thousands of cattle the culling policy would save, rather than this single cow. I know this is not strictly the choice that is facing the government (yet) but if the disease control policy is disrupted but this ruling, it will be a valid observation.
(Although my grasp of law is pretty feeble!) AC1
July 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
When I first made the post I did so without the full text of the Judges ruling being available. Hence no reference to art 9 and the absence of quotes.
The point I made (that I attributed to the Judge and you attributed to the defence lawyers) was an honest misquote, the original text (pre-release of the ruling) implied this was the Judge’s actual words, so thankyou for the clarification.
“I am (subjectively) pleased at the result, but somewhat dissappointed that it is being presented as supporting the ‘right’ of the hindu to hold an animal sacred.”
I was making the first of your two points, the first as you mentioned was not under scrutiny in court, but was being ‘presented’ by some of the media as if this were the case. It is this that I was disappointed about, as some of the media portrayals were (or appeared) to question the right of the community to hold the bull as sacred. My concern in the case was (as we discussed before) the ‘sacredness’ of the bull is secondary to the primary question kill/not kill. And I was arguing in favour of options for the latter.
“ignore this paragraph”
No I hadnt recieved the text in full (only press releases). Otherwise a little more time would have been spent on the commentary. But you seem to have adequately explained it.
Regards my opinions, part 1 of the ruling concerning artecle 9 of the human rights is not the strongest of arguments. I would not support the case on the basis of this alone. However I would think that (just like philosophers tend to do) the lawyers decided to approach this with a variety of arguments, article 9 being one of them.
Part 2, “The government did not adequately establish the link between the slaughter of Shambo, to the control of bTb, to the protection of public health.”
Is I think the stronger argument, and if I were the Skanda Vale lawyers it would have been this argument as a priority with the ‘religious principles’ a supplementary (but not strictly necessary second.)
“If I had to make a choice, I would value the lives of the thousands of cattle the culling policy would save, rather than this single cow.”
I would partially agree with you, but try to apply balance. If a similar test (which your comment indicates to be stronger than my comment gives it credit for) were to indicate that a single cow within a herd was suspected of infection, then it would undeniably be good practise to effect a slaughter order. In those circumstances though where the cow is isolated from a herd, and is not intended for the food chain, and the risk of human infection were minimal, I would support a situational review of the law in this case.
That this case went to the High Court, suggests that the Skanda Vale lawyers believed there to be sufficient grounds to argue for a case review to occur, and they had reasonable hopes for success.
Two points:
1) I agree with you part of the issue was that the Welsh Assembly acted in haste. However in addition (my opinion) is that the framework under which they were operating was inadequate, likely out of convenience.
2) The reason I offered a defence to the ‘Shambo’ side was to denounce the idea that the alleged ‘sacredness’ of the bull should be focal point of the case. Some individual commentators from a secular perspective at times sought to amplify this element of the case.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“I was making the first of your two points, the first as you mentioned was not under scrutiny in court, but was being ‘presented’ by some of the media as if this were the case.”
Yeah I came to all sorts of conclusions reading most media reports, then I fortunately found the findings document. I was not really impressed with the media’s reporting on this case – although I think we are now getting more in depth then your regular punter!
AC1
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Shambo slaughter backed by court
The decision to block a slaughter notice served on Shambo the “sacred” temple bullock has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6911378.stm
I have not found out their justification but I will be interested to hear it. AC1
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
hmmm.
If the grounds for preventing its slaughter were purely religious then the grounds were weak as the law currently stands.
The only ‘exception’ I can make on behalf of the Hindus, with regards the ‘well what if I start worhshipping my bull’ argument, is that the values of Hinduism are well known. But that would appear to prioritise institutional religion to the exclusion of private belief.
Not that, that means anything. Re: a news story over the weekend, a restaurant in Durham called ‘the Fat Buddha’ has been ordered by the local council apparatchiks to change its name as it could cause offence to buddhists.
1) The owner a chinese buddhist, pointed out that ‘the fat buddha’ was an auspicious symbol in his culture and represented good fortune.
2) The British Buddhist Council (or whatever they’re called) confirmed that this was the case, and further pointed out that it is a central tenet of Buddhism not to take offence at anything.
The council reviewed the situation and has refused to back down, still stateing that the name must be changed in order to prevent the causation of offence.
Curiouser and curiouser.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Officials have been turned away twice from the Temple whilst trying to serve a slaughter order on Shambo. A monk stated that a service for the sanctity of life was being held and that if the officials wanted to get Shambo they would have to break sanctuary.
Jay Lakhani a Hindu educationalist has become one of the first high profile Hindus to speak out against the actions of the monks. Describing the slaughter as “sad” he opined that the monks protest was as a result of a “naive” misrepresentation of Hinduism. The author who writes school books on the basics of Hinduism stated that his interpretation of the Hindu faith was that although all life was sacred the good of the many outways the good of the individual. If indeed Shambo is suspected, or considered to be contagious beyond doubt, then to preserve life the slaughter order must be followed.