The regulation of animal welfare at the intersection of race, religion and species: The case of religious slaughter bans in European courts

European court decisions confirming Belgian bans on religious slaughter have been analysed primarily as clash between animal welfare and religious freedom. This article proposes a different reading that considers these bans as sites for constituting the ‘humane and civilised subject’ at the intersection of race, religion and species difference. It first situates contemporary bans within animal welfare legislation's longer history. It traces how race, religion and species difference have shaped understandings of non-human animal harm and suffering, including in relation to Muslim and Jewish slaughter practices. Moving on to contemporary case law, the article explores how notions of difference continue to operate in the reasoning of European Courts in ways that scrutinise minority practices while protecting majoritarian practices from critical examination. It argues that the decisions position observant Jews and Muslims outside ‘contemporary European public morals’. Moreover, these decisions perpetuate animal welfare law's speciesist logic, reinforcing non-human animals’ inferior status rather than substantially alleviating their suffering.