Response to interpellation 2024/25:690 on illegal slaughtering activities in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that illegal slaughter activities have increased and pose a risk to animal welfare, consumer safety, and competition for serious companies 1 2. KD emphasizes that slaughter without stunning is completely prohibited regardless of religious reasons 1 2 and that information initiatives are central 2. SD considers that illegal slaughter is an animal welfare problem, a legal problem, and an integration problem 3. SD argues that religious conviction must not be a free pass from legislation 4. SD considers that it is about parallel structures where religious leaders set the framework instead of Swedish laws 4. SD considers that illegal halal slaughter without stunning is a religiously sanctioned defiance of the law 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Sara Gille has asked me how I assess the extent of illegal slaughter activities in Sweden at the current time, whether the government intends to take measures to improve supervision and identify illegal slaughterhouses, whether I consider today's criminal sanctions for offenses against the Animal Welfare Act to be sufficient, and what efforts are being made to increase knowledge among the general public about what constitutes legal slaughter according to Swedish law.
The Swedish Food Agency assesses that the occurrence of illegal slaughter has increased in recent years. I view this seriously for several reasons. Illegal slaughtering activity involves, among other things, a risk that animals are subjected to suffering when the slaughter occurs in a way that does not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. There is also a risk that consumers are misled or harmed. Finally, it affects the ability for serious companies to compete on equal terms.
Ensuring that food fraud is detected and countered is important, and that is why it was welcome when the government in June 2024 received the report Strengthened control of fraud in the food chain (SOU 2024:44) after a special investigator had been tasked to investigate and submit proposals aimed at strengthening the work of detecting and countering fraud and deception in the food chain. The report has been referred and is now being prepared within the Government Offices.
On 1 July 2022, a new penal provision regarding aggravated animal cruelty was introduced in the Penal Code for the most serious cases of crimes against animals – this in order to be able to impose proportionate sentences for more serious cases of animal cruelty.
Illegal slaughter activities where animals risk being subjected to suffering are not compatible with Sweden's good animal welfare and ambitious animal protection legislation. The Animal Welfare Act states that animals shall be spared from unnecessary suffering and discomfort when they are slaughtered. An animal slaughtered by bleeding shall always be stunned according to current legislation, and there are no exceptions for religious slaughter methods. On this point, we go further than EU legislation requires because it is justified for animal welfare reasons.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! In Sweden, the Animal Welfare Act applies, which is crystal clear: slaughter shall be carried out with the minimum possible suffering, and stunning before bleeding is an unconditional requirement. It is not an alternative or an interpretation, but a binding legal requirement in a civilized society.
What we are seeing now, not least in the reporting from Jönköping County, shows however a completely different reality. It is a reality where Swedish law has been set aside, where the torture of animals occurs in secret and where the rule of law loses ground.
Four sheep had their throats cut in a basement. What was claimed would suffice as anesthesia, and thus fulfill the requirements of the law, was a volley against insect bites. This is a ruthless abuse of the animal and also against our rule of law: There is no slaughterhouse permit, no supervision and no rules being followed – only a painful and slow suffering and dying.
This is a growing problem in Sweden. It is not just about illegal slaughter taking place, but about the fact that society seems to stand by helplessly. When even the minister himself admits that illegal slaughter is increasing and the National Food Agency confirms the development, it is not enough to merely state the problem – actual action is also required.
It is also about food safety, about lost control over the supervision systems and about the unacceptable situation where serious food companies are forced to compete with operations that break every single rule. This is not ignorance – it is an animal welfare problem, a legal problem and an integration problem.
It is about a refusal to adapt to the society one lives in. It is cellar slaughter where religious practices are followed but Swedish law is broken. Within the Islamic tradition, halal slaughter is a religious obligation, but in Sweden it is a crime if it is carried out without stunning.
Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight an aspect that is often missed or deliberately avoided in the debate. Within certain interpretations of Islam, slaughter without stunning is seen as a religious obligation. Halal means that the blood must be drained from the animal while it is alive, often without prior stunning and with specific prayers. This is deeply rooted in religious tradition.
When I was a child and visited my father's village in Turkey, my uncle performed a halal slaughter of one of their finest sheep. At that moment, I did not know what was happening, but I heard the sheep let out a terrible scream. I tried to open the door. I knocked on the door and tried to get inside to save the sheep.
For them, it was a tradition. They wanted to give the sheep as a gift to me before I was going back to Sweden. It was supposed to be for good food and such things. It was a tradition. For me, it was something terrible that I will never forget. I was 14 years old then.
This is the suffering that we are talking about today. It is precisely why the Swedish animal welfare law is so important to defend. We shall never accept that religious custom, however well-established it may be, is given precedence over the animals' right to a dignified death.
I would like to ask questions to the Minister. I still have not received answers to the questions I have sent to the Minister, so I am bouncing all my questions back to him. I simply want answers to my questions.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country where animal welfare is a given. It is something that I believe most Swedes are proud of. We have long stood up for animals to be slaughtered under as humane conditions as possible, with stunning, control, and respect. But we must also acknowledge that this system is being undermined today. It is not about ignorance but about a certain religion. Some practitioners of the religion Islam deliberately break the law to uphold their faith in Allah.
I am speaking about illegal halal slaughter. Of course, one can dismiss this and say that it concerns isolated cases and that it is possible to carry out halal slaughter that is compatible with Swedish law. Of course, one can claim this. But the fact is that we do not know. Despite the fact that 10 percent of Sweden's population comes from Muslim countries, no authority has attempted to find out how widespread illegal halal slaughter is in Sweden.
The reason why we should conduct such a mapping is that people in the Muslim countries these people come from usually perform halal slaughter without stunning. It is not certain that the Muslims who come to Sweden adapt to Swedish legislation as soon as they cross the border, but many of them probably continue to uphold the traditions from their home country.
In Malmö, the city I come from, halal meat is more common than non-halal meat. Of course, some of the halal meat is imported, but some is also slaughtered in Sweden. Given that there is no consensus among Muslims that animals can be halal-slaughtered in accordance with Swedish law, one should actually take a look at how the halal meat in Sweden is produced.
There is a certain demand for halal meat that has been slaughtered illegally. This demand and the fact that we have so many Muslims in Sweden create conditions for widespread illegal slaughter activities. One might then think it is strange that no one has looked more closely at this.
It is very simple to find out which slaughterhouses in Sweden produce halal meat and see how they operate. It is not difficult. But I find it hard to believe that Muslims who come to Sweden at Sweden's border give up their conviction about what is halal meat and what is not. I believe that they take their conviction with them to Sweden and that it has had consequences.
One or another might think that meat is meat – it has to be eaten anyway. But here it is about law and order. Illegal slaughter is illegal regardless of whether it takes place in Allah's name or for economic gain.
It is not just about animal cruelty, it is about parallel societies where Swedish laws and norms are not respected. In such a situation, the state cannot back down and turn a blind eye. That is why a mapping is important. We cannot turn a blind eye, however small or large the problem may be.
It is important that the government pays attention to this problem and at least works towards a mapping, as all the conditions are in place for the problem to be widespread, especially because the demand for halal meat is now high due to the Muslim immigration.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will be as clear as I can, if my introduction was not clear enough for the interpellor.
Question 1: Yes, it has increased in recent years. That is what I said.
Question 3: The penalty was increased in 2022. I do not rule out that it needs to be increased further.
Question 4: Yes, information efforts are naturally extremely central.
Then I want to point out what I said in my initial response: It is not permitted to slaughter animals without stunning in Sweden. No religious reasons are accepted as exceptions to that. It is simply forbidden.
It is fundamental in Sweden that animals should be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering both during their lifetime and at slaughter. This is also something that our consumers rightly expect. Therefore, it genuinely upsets me that there are illegal activities that not only risk exposing animals to suffering but also distort competition and truly make it harder for serious companies to operate on equal terms.
I also know that the Swedish Food Agency regularly receives tips about illegal slaughter. Against that background, the report on the fraud investigation is very welcome. It highlights the challenges within public control and the actual costs that the fraud entails for both consumers and serious companies. As I have mentioned previously, the report has been sent out for consultation and is now being prepared within the Government Offices.
In addition to supervision, controls, and pure crime-fighting activities, the preventive work is crucial.
Information initiatives play an important role in increasing the understanding of what is permitted. It is not always easy – this applies particularly in a society where many actors have different backgrounds and different levels of knowledge. Here, both Livsmedelsverket and Jordbruksverket have an important function. They provide accessible and updated information on which rules apply, and it is central to preventing both intentional and unintentional rule violations.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! We have a rule of law where small business owners are fined for accounting errors, but halal slaughter in basements can occur without intervention.
The Minister mentioned in his answer that illegal slaughter involves animal suffering, food risks, and a distorted competitive situation. That is correct, but I would have wished that the answer and the measures had gone further than that. This is also about legal certainty, about trust in the legislation, and about safeguarding the principle that Swedish law applies equally to everyone, regardless of who you are and where you come from.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has chosen to go further than the EU – yes – when it comes to the slaughter method. We do not allow slaughter without stunning – no – even if it were justified with reference to religion. It is a decision based on values of humanity and respect for the animals. But we must be honest. There are groups in Sweden who consider themselves above certain laws. They claim that religious faith gives them that right.
We cannot have a society where religious conviction is used as a free pass from legislation. Let's be honest! What we see is the emergence of parallel structures where religious leaders, not Swedish laws, set the framework and where the Quran, not the Animal Welfare Act, defines what is permitted. It is not just the animals that pay the price; it is the entire society.
Halal slaughter is a clear example of when religion clashes with our fundamental ethical principles. It is a religious ritual that in its orthodox form is based on the animal being conscious.
I would still have wished that the government had been clearer on this issue. I did not ask about volumes and controls, but I asked how one views the cultural and religious aspect. But I feel that I did not get a direct answer precisely regarding that.
This is, as I have said, largely about an Islamist slaughter tradition that clashes with Swedish values. And it is not just any culture. It is a religious custom where suffering is seen as acceptable as long as it occurs in God's name.
But in Sweden, we prioritize animal welfare over religious rituals. Here, the law comes first, not imams and not interpretations of the Quran.
A government investigation from 2024 was mentioned. That is positive. But no clear information is given on how the results from that investigation shall be translated into actual change. We do not just need increased knowledge. We need increased presence. We need the authorities to dare to act, and we need a government that clarifies that Swedish animal welfare law applies to everyone without exception.
It must become easier to detect, punish and shut down this type of activity. And a clear signal must be sent to the public: Slaughtering in basements, garages and sheds is illegal – period. There is no gray area.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! There is an example from Finland that can show how widespread the problem with illegal halal slaughter can be.
In 2021, the police in Finland investigated illegal halal slaughter of sheep that took place in Ostrobothnia during the years 2012–2016. It was then estimated that 1,800 sheep were slaughtered illegally.
The interesting thing is that the police had long known about such illegal halal slaughter through rumors. But when the cooperation regarding these issues was strengthened between the police, prosecutors, and the National Food Agency, evidence could be gathered for this.
Something that was looked at more closely in Finland was whether sheep farmers had received a request where someone wanted a live sheep to slaughter themselves. It is a strange request, but it is an indication that someone is going to carry out illegal halal slaughter.
As I said earlier: 10 percent of Sweden's population comes from Muslim countries where halal slaughter is carried out, which is not compatible with Swedish law. I am quite sure that if the relevant authorities were to look closer at this, they would see that there are probably Swedish sheep farmers who receive similar requests.
Then it is usually about wanting to hold a party and that before the party, one wants to halal-slaughter a sheep in a traditional way, where one does not use stunning.
I do not think it is so difficult to look closer at this issue. On the other hand, it may be that politically correct actors do not become so happy with what they find.
The Muslim immigration to Sweden has been enormous in recent years. It would be unlikely if the Muslim immigrants had taken all their traditions with them except for illegal halal slaughter.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if the interpellor and I have the same questions, for I thought that I had answered them.
The first question was how I assess the extent of illegal slaughter activities in Sweden at the current time. It sounded like something else. I stated in my first answer that it has increased in recent years.
The second question was: Does the government intend to take measures to improve supervision and identify illegal slaughterhouses? The simple answer to that question is yes.
The third question was: Does the Minister consider today's criminal sanctions for offenses against the Animal Welfare Act to be sufficient? My answer there was: Yes, we increased the penalties in 2022. I do not rule out that more needs to be done in that area.
The final question concerned what measures we are taking to increase public knowledge about what constitutes legal slaughter according to Swedish law. There, I presented the authorities' work and that information is central.
Once again, for the sake of clarity: It is not permitted, regardless of anything, to slaughter an animal without required stunning in Sweden.
There is much that is happening that is not permitted in Sweden and that we truly distance ourselves from. Here, we must ensure that authorities become stronger and that the justice system becomes stronger so that we can address it. This can involve everything from shootings, explosions, and honor-related crimes to crimes against our animal welfare act. Here, we obviously need to do more.
Madam Speaker! I believe that Sara Gille is also fully aware that I, as a government minister, as the responsible minister, cannot anticipate what we will come to when it regards an investigation. But I can state that the report has been submitted. It has been out for consultation, and it is being prepared at this moment in the Government Offices. When it comes to exactly what will be in the bill, we simply have to wait until we are there.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! I hear the Minister's answer, but I still believe that more needs to be done. The problem still exists, in fact. Despite it not being permitted, it exists. Therefore, more needs to be done in this matter.
It is not a matter of freedom of religion. This is a religiously sanctioned defiance of the law. Every time it is allowed to pass, the signal is sent that Swedish law can be bypassed if one simply refers to the right religion. It is dangerous.
This is not a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate refusal to follow Swedish law, based on religious beliefs. It occurs with the support of an ideology that challenges our entire legal system. In mosques, it is preached about what is halal and haram. But in Sweden, the mosque does not decide what applies. It is the Riksdag that sets the rules of the game, and there should be no exceptions for religious customs that harm animals.
This is part of a broader pattern where Islamist values challenge Swedish law. We have seen it in honor oppression and gender segregation, and now within animal welfare. It is not integration. It is a parallel worldview that demands adaptation from Swedish society, and we can never accept that.
Now we see an Islamist slaughter practice being introduced and defended with reference to religion. It is not Islamophobia to demand that everyone follows Swedish law. It is an Islamization when religious norms are allowed to stand above Swedish law, and it is the task of politics to put a stop to it all.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! For the fifth time: In Sweden, it is not permitted to slaughter animals without stunning. It does not matter what reason one might have for it, religious or otherwise. It is not permitted, and those who break the law shall, of course, also be punished for it.
I actually believe there is a fairly large consensus between myself and the interpellor on these issues. Of course, animal husbandry and slaughter must take place according to the Swedish Animal Welfare Act, and that is also what our consumers have the right to expect. Just as the interpellor both writes and says, everyone who stays in Sweden, regardless of background, must follow the laws and rules that apply here.
I want to emphasize that this is an issue that concerns much more than just regulations. It is about the trust in our food system, about respect for animals, and about fair conditions for the companies that want to do the right thing.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.