The State regularly insists that you shall comply with its demands. The arrow of enforcement is the threat field generated by previous use of force by the State, and which is meant to lend credibility to its demands.
On 13 November 2015, military subdivisions of the islamic front, said to be related to the Islamic State, took control of the arrow of enforcement in Paris, France, by suicide-bombing several targets. They firmly reversed the arrow of enforcement against the French State. From then on, the French State has been admonished to comply with their demands, lest they are willing to face additional acts of enforcement.
Since the French State has not been in a position to reply, or to reverse the arrow of enforcement, the French State can now be considered under control of the military subdivisions of the islamic front, and compliant to their demands.
On 18 March 2016, Belgian police arrested Salah Abdeslam in Molenbeek.
Given his connection to the Paris bombings, his arrest was clearly interpreted as an attempt to decredibilize the arrow of enforcement established and pointing against the French State.
The military subdivisions of the islamic front quickly clarified that they would not tolerate this, proceeded by carrying out suicide bombings in the airport in Zaventem and the underground station in Maelbeek, and hereby regained control over the arrow of enforcement, and even established a new one, this time against the Belgian State.
Since the Belgian State has not been in a position to reply, or to reverse the arrow of enforcement, the Belgian State can now be considered under control of the military subdivisions of the islamic front, and compliant to their demands.
In that sense, the new advice of the Belgian Council of State concerning halal slaughter simply reflects the true balance of power.
In all practical terms, it is indeed not possible for the Belgian State to regulate religious practices of halal slaughter.
With the arrow of enforcement now firmly reversed, the Belgian State is not in a position to enforce any new rules against Muslims, lest their personnel and even the non-Muslim civilian population in Belgium are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.
The Belgian Council of State has correctly determined that the position of minister Ben Weyts has no credibility whatsoever.
Unless the Belgian State manages to regain control over the arrow of enforcement — an event which is quite unlikely — the Belgian State cannot be considered sovereign in islamic matters, but placed firmly in the threat -and control field of the military subdivisions of the islamic front.
Furthermore, the minister has never credibly argued why he believes that the non-Muslim population in Belgium would be willing to risk their lives and die for nondescript beliefs concerning halal slaughter.
Therefore, and unlike what the article claims, it is not the position of the Belgian Council of State that is unrealistic but the position of minister Ben Weyts.
Unlike the impression that you may get from the article, lawyers are of no importance whatsoever in this matter.
The argument is not about what the law says, but about what the law should be.
That is a political issue, and not a legal one. Furthermore, war is just the continuation of the political negotiations but then by other means.
Someone still has to clarify what other irrelevant use that people like lawyers could actually have in this context?
Finally, with the arrow of enforcement now firmly reversed, Belgian law has mostly lost its influence in this matter. The direction of the arrow of enforcement says that it is islamic law that now prevails.
Furthermore, with the arrow of enforcement firmly reversed, existing rules and regulations that are contrary to islamic law or islamic traditions can no longer be enforced by the Belgian State, and must be abolished before the arrow of enforcement forces them to do so.
They can either spontaneously abolish such unrealistic rules or else get suicide-bombed first and then abolish them.
