Cameron ambushed

good for you guys. if anyone has info on what happened inside the building, ie - what question this activist asked DC and what his response was, let's hear it. keep fighting!

For your info Jake:

Just FYI - here's the transcript of David Cameron being questioned on the issue of hunting and his nonsensical drivel about.. well not much really... (from Q&A at The Wirral Thursday 14/08/08)


Questioner : In view of your talk about a civilised society a few minutes ago, how do you reconcile your barbaric hunting activities with this civilised society and also with your determination to bring back this barbaric sport?




Cameron : Well thank you very much for the question. I think in a civilised society we have to respect each others' views and we have to respect people's right to take part in a pastime that has gone on for centuries in our country, and that's why I happen to think that the hunting act was wrong. I think we were trying to regulate and criminalise something which shouldn't be a criminal activity; now that's my view. I'm a member of parliament that's how I voted. Other members of parliament voted in a different way and so we've got this slightly peculiar hunting act that doesn't seem to hav stopped people hunting but is a massive distraction of police time as they all run around trying to work out what is going on. I think that's a waste of police time. If there is a new parliament with another bunch of MPs in I think we should have another vote and if parliament vote to get rid of the hunting act then I think that's what should happen. Personally, I would vote to get rid of the hunting act because I think that the police have got more important things to do. And I think we have to respect... I think it is very dangerous in a country if majorities start telling minorities exactly what they have to do and how they have to behave. I would defend to the death your right to passionately disagree with me, and I think that the idea that people disapproved of hunting – absolutely fine, but trying to criminalise something which I think the proof of the law- the law shows how difficult it is to criminalise something like hunting look what a mess they've made of it even after 400 hours of debate or whatever it was and franklyaren't there more important things for parliament to discuss?




(idiots clapping)




Very quickly because we've got so many things to get through (HA)!




Questioner : The fact that something is legal doesn't make it right. There are a lot of things in history that were very wrong. This is a barbaric act that you're a part of – your hunt has been prosecuted for illegal hunting. Yes the hunting act has flaws, but it is ultimately right. You can do what you like in a civilised society but you don't abuse vulnerable animals




Cameron : Of course... let me just take that one quickly.. of course it was right to ban bear baiting or badger baiting... entirely pointless.... I don't agree, the fox population has to (hang on, you've had your go, let me have mine) The fox population has to be controlled. More foxes are now being shot and gassed, and frankly run over on our roads. Has that improved animal welfare? I don't believe it has, but that is the argument we can have, we should have it in parliament rather than having demonstrations on the street and all the rest of it.

What animal-lib serves is to erode national culture in favour of some half-breed multiculture that is controlled from the top by the financial elite. Of course, national culture in the past was also dictated by elites, but it at least has more potential for control by local populations. Hunting is an English tradition. As long as it is not taken too far (i.e. too many foxes are killed, making the species endangered), its OK. The rights of animals should only be respected insofar as human activities are not restricted. For example, better regulation of chicken farms, and better treatment of chickens, would be good for the consumer of chicken products. But in this case no benefit can be shown for humans. We must be utilitarian in everything we do.

[[ What animal-lib serves is to erode national culture in favour of some half-breed multiculture that is controlled from the top by the financial elite ]] - Not quite!!

...animal liberation serves to end the slavery and prison system which raises and kills animals purely for human gain. Interesting to see people think that this means control by a financial elite, could they be any more off target?

To "end the slavery and prison system", by the definition of anti-speciesm, requires that all animals, human or non-human, are liberated from such abuse.

You can't pull the wool over the publics eyes.
Control by a financial elite is the current living standard globally!

Abolitionist Animal Rights = Veganarchism!

'but it at least has more potential for control by local populations. Hunting is an English tradition. As long as it is not taken too far (i.e. too many foxes are killed, making the species endangered), its OK.'

So the author of this little gem thinks that chasing a wild mammal to the point of exhaustion to be ripped apart by dogs, watched by a bunch of braying adults on horseback is OK, so long as the porr animals does not become extinct. May he/she reap what they sow, lets us hope the same kind of warped philospohy is used on him/her. The premise here is not that the animal may or may not become extinct, it is that this kind of blatent, barbaric cruelty, which is done in the name of 'sport', is acceptable to anyone with any decency. Clearly the author of this comment has no conscience or compassion. Perhaps the hunters have infiltrated indymedia?