Your thoughts please..re Judgements mindful of religion over Health LAWS?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6902231.stm

I asked a question recently about the juror who was "allegedly" (I use the word advisedly as I was NOT present there at the time of incident...) listening to her mp3 under her hijab.. and wondered if our judges are "extra mindful" of not upsetting any religious groups...

Today, I am asking the same question... only re the judge deciding that it's ok for ALL farmers whose cattle have a negative tb test to be put down... EXCEPT THIS ANIMAL.. on the grounds of QUOTE "But a judge ruled it would infringe the community's rights under Article Nine of the European Convention on Human Rights covering freedom of religion. "

Whilst I accept other faiths and thier cultures, nevertheless, farmers in West WALES and other parts of UK and Ireland have lost valuable livestock over the YEARS from not only a negative tb test, but QUESTIONABLE tb negative tests also..

There is a reason for this test.. but not for this particular bullock..?

Answer 1

The obvious solution to this problem is to ignore the stupidity of putting religion before common sense, and then eradicate the Judge who made the decision. No group or religion what ever their beliefs should be given preference over medical decisions whether they are for human or livestock the rules apply to all, people can follow any religion or faith they want in the countries that allow them to, if your religion is contra to our rules and regulations then you can practise your faith in another country, if your religion is so important to you that you are willing to risk causing wholesale slaughter of livestock, then moving to a country which allows such behaviour should not be to much of a disposition.

Answer 2

Yeah mon!

The sacred bull in Wales has got TB which can quickly spread to the human population. The Farmers Union of Wales want the bull dead. They say no one knows how this sacred bull got TB, either from someone visiting the temple to worship or airborne or whatever.

The judgement allowing the bull to live means that any farmer in Wales who's cattle have TB could legally refuse to have them slaughtered on the grounds of this judgement.

The whole thing is now going back to the Welsh Assembly. See what happens.

A big mess if you ask me, in particular since the so called sacred bull is living an artificial life. He is a cattle person and wants to be with other cattle, particularly girl cattle. He has not had a normal life and will eventually die anyway, either by being slaughtered or of the TB.

This 'foolish judgement' is going to set the fight against TB in cattle back 70 years.

Answer 3

The recent judgement was about balancing the safety of the general public with allowing individuals to go about their lawful pursuits. A lot of human activity could be dangerous to other people and governments have to find the right balance when drawing up laws about driving, smoking, drinking etc.

We have some strange laws about animal diseases. Many are there simply to reassure people that meat is safe to eat. If a cow or bull is exposed to TB, it must be killed, even if it doesn't develop the disease. Cats, dogs and humans exposed to TB don't have to be killed, and if they develop symptoms, they can be treated. Bovine TB can be treated - but you then can't sell the milk or the meat.

Shambo has been exposed to TB. No-one has said he's infectious. No-one knows if he'll develop TB. He lives in a temple and there is little scope for him being a danger to other animals. If he develops TB, humans can't catch it directly (you can catch it from infected milk, but Shambo's a bull!)

The Welsh Assembly want him killed because rules is rules. The temple don't want him killed because they regard him as sacred. The court has decided that the Assembly were too hasty.

Answer 4

It's a joke! I'm all for freedom of anything be it religion, sexuality, speech whatever but how can we jusify the risk to other cattle and therefore peoples livelyhoods by letting this infected animal live just in case it offends someone? It's infected put it down. Are the human rights of all the farmers who's cattle etc are put at risk by this decision not covered by the ECHR as well?

Answer 5

The government is allowed to give special dispensation in some cases. Given that there was very little to be gained from killing the cow and little risk of the disease spreading I don't have much of a problem here.
Aside from that I think that to be worshiping a cow (or anything else) in 2007 is shamefull.

Answer 6

Religions some times clash with normal law.Some Hindu Countries they cannot kill even sick cows.In some countries pigs cannot be killed.It is better to change local custom/belief by education and publicity.

Answer 7

The person has admitted to the offence.

Answer 8

It wasnt alleged. She has admitted to doing so.