Ritual slaughter and freedom of religion:A critical analysis of the wider issues raised by the ECtHR in the Belgian case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution outlines and analyses the judgement of the ecthr in the case of Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v. Belgium. Two Belgian regional decrees, which prohibted ritual slaughter without the prior stunning of animals, were found not to have violated the right to freedom of religion in article 9 echr. Several issues are discussed in this regard, including whether the decrees had interfered with article 9 echr, whether the interference had been prescribed by law, whether the protection of animal welfare qualified as a legitimate aim and whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society in the light of the margin of appreciation. The analysis is conducted with due regard to the ecthr’s judgement in Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France and the cjeu’s judgement in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v. Vlaamse Regering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".