HAMTRAMCK, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – On Tuesday evening, in a 4-2 approval, an all-Muslim city council in Hamtramck voted to amend their animal ordinance to reinforce state and federal law that they said already allows animal sacrifice for religious reasons.
The council discussed the issue at the Hamtramck City Hall for almost three hours amongst themselves and dozens of residents who showed up to share their opinions with the city officials. The majority of those in attendance and those who submitted emails to the council were against allowing animal sacrifice in the homes of city residents.
In a compromise between the supporters and critics of allowing animal sacrifice in Hamtramck, the council had come up with amendments to the animal ordinance in December of 2022 that allowed animal sacrifice in private homes along with city regulations that needed to be followed including notifying the city ahead of the sacrifice, submitting to post-inspections, paying a fee, and keeping the sacrifice out of the view of the public.
But in the end, they voted on something different. After getting advice from their legal counsel, City Attorney Odey Meroueh, who said that animal sacrifice was already legal through the state and federal government, the council members voted to allow the animal sacrifice if it was followed legally and humanely as the local, state and federal laws require.
Michigan law contains Act 163 of 1962’s “Humane Slaughter of Livestock” which is an act to require humane methods of slaughter of livestock and fix penalties for violations. Livestock is defined as cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules, goats and any other animal which can or may be used in and for the preparation of meat or meat products. The legislation also contains a section on ritual (religious) slaughter.
The slaughtering of animals is something that is practiced by Muslims during the holiday of Eid al-Adha, where meat is eaten after the religious ritual. Although Hamtramck has a large Muslim population, the city’s ordinance (and the state laws) don’t refer to any specific religions when discussing ritual slaughter.
Attorney Meroueh told the council that animal sacrifices were already allowed by state statute and through the federal government, pointing to the 1993 Supreme Court case Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah which ruled that animal sacrifices are protected under the First Amendment and that the city in question had tried to suppress a religious practice, violating the free exercise clause.
Meroueh said that, in his opinion, the council had two choices – they could either codify the laws already on the books or take a pass and not say anything about animal sacrifice in their animal ordinance.
MORE NEWS: Federal Government Report Finds Lake Sturgeon Not Endangered
Before reading the new language that was proposed by Meroueh and the city administration, he said, “Animal sacrifice is allowed in every city in the state, in fact the state of Michigan allows it. There’s a statute that allows animal sacrifice. Not only that, but the federal government allows it…So what we’ve done here is basically codified almost the exact same wording as the state and federal governments – fitted to our specific statute. So it is already allowed. We’re just reenforcing that…” Meroueh said they removed all of the restrictions because it was the correct legal avenue to take.
Meroueh went on to read the exact language that the city would use in their animal ordinance. He said, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit, abridge or in any way hinder the religious freedom of any person or group. Not withstanding any other provision of this chapter, ritual handling or other preparation of livestock for ritual slaughter are exempted from the terms of this chapter. For the purpose of this section, the term “ritual slaughter” means slaughter in accordance with the lone definition. To conform with the provisions and intent of this chapter, animals not previously rendered insensible, and to be slaughtered in accordance with a humane method as defined in the definition below shall be slaughtered immediately following total suspension from the floor as otherwise prescribed by city and state law.”
He continued to say, “‘Humane method’ means either: A method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or a method in accordance with ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.”
He also said that included in the language was that “residents conducting ritual religious sacrifice shall dispose of all waste in accordance with local, state and federal law.”
What was debated by the residents before the attorney’s advice to the council was the language from the December 2022 ordinance amendments and not the information and language that the attorney provided above.
The passage of the revisions to the ordinance on Tuesday evening was voted into the city’s animal ordinance despite a majority of the residents generally opposing animal sacrifice in private homes in the city. The opposition came in the form of public comment, the public hearing and in the emails sent to the council and read at the meeting.
Most of the opposition that came from the public was from Muslim residents of the city. They cited many reasons for their opposition including noise, odor, rats, cleanliness, disease, residents who won’t follow the regulations, the city being too busy to do the inspections and follow their own ordinance, sick animals being brought into the city, residents getting sick eating the meat, kids being traumatized, a bad idea in a densely populated area, alternative options (four butchers in the city), the fact that the city is not farmland, people bringing animals into the city, bad press, and getting heat from animal rights groups.
Concerns about health and safety were the main concerns of the residents with a few of them saying that the city was dirty enough and had enough rats.
Although opposition to the change to the animal ordinance was prevalent throughout the night, it became clear that a top priority for the council was to make a decision that would avoid future lawsuits. In fact, a representative from the organization CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Michigan was in attendance and spoke during the public hearing. She told the council that her group was fully prepared to take legal action against the city if they were to violate the Constitution and infringe on the religious rights of the residents of Hamtramck.
Most of the supporters who wanted to allow animal sacrifice in the city had cited the same reason as CAIR discussed. They said the city should protect their freedom of religion.
Some in the crowd and also a councilman asked about putting the issue to a public vote on a ballot initiative but the city attorney made the argument that the council needed to follow the laws of the state and federal government and not open the city up to litigation. One councilman asked about tabling the issue in order to study the issue further.
Others in the crowd, and some in the council, wanted the discussion to be over with so they could move forward. They voiced concern about not wanting to waste any more time researching and discussing the issue which had started back in July of 2022 when it was originally brought to the council.
Even though most of the residents who contacted the council in person or by email were against allowing animal sacrifices in Hamtramck homes, Mayor Amer Ghalib didn’t think they were representative of the entire community, citing the fact that many of the emails in opposition came from the same families.
Ghalib thought that the council would only get a true measure of the opinion of the city through “random” interaction. But in the end, public input did not appear to be a deciding factor for most in their vote to amend the city’s animal ordinance.
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.