A great many of us have had our faith slightly restored in the government by yesterday’s debate in the commons about hunting. MPs backed a ban on hunting in England and Wales by 339 to 155 votes. Hurray!
The pro-hunting campaigners have finally shown their true colours - and it is not a pretty sight.
The pro-hunting campaigners have finally shown their true colours - and it is not a pretty sight.
A great many of us have had our faith slightly restored in the government by yesterday’s debate in the commons about hunting. MPs backed a ban on hunting in England and Wales by 339 to 155 votes. Hurray! Who cares if Tony does have an ulterior motive – finally he’s doing something that the caring leftfield public want.
Of course, it still has to be debated in the Lords and would not be due to come into force for nearly two years, but fingers crossed!
Of course there are a lot of people who are infuriated by this, namely the upper classes and rural communities, but any rational person can see the gaping holes in their selfish arguments.
Fox hunting is a thinly veiled excuse for a jolly day out riding with their friends – with the added bonus of being able to shed the thin veneer of civilised behaviour and revert to their baser instincts for the day.
Hunt advocates defend it by saying it is a sport. The dictionary defines sport as an activity, usually involving physical exertion that is partaken for pleasure/recreation, often in a competitive manner. A fox is not much competition for a pack of hounds and people on horseback, and it certainly is not getting much pleasure from the activity. The pleasure, therefore, is on the part of the hunters as they watch a helpless fox being ripped apart for their entertainment.
On the other hand, if it is just a sport, why are they reacting to the ban so strongly? If sport is just recreation, why do people take it so seriously? They could easily take up another sport instead – put their energy and “community spirit” into something more constructive. Of course, many people do take sport very seriously – some football fans are like religious fanatics, but then their sport is not harming any other living creatures. If it did involve the exploitation of vulnerable people such as children, nobody would protest against that being banned.
There are also those who defend fox hunting because they believe it is a necessary way of culling a rural predator. As a believer in animal rights, I won’t advocate the deliberate slaying of any creatures unnecessarily, but for the sake of argument, if it is absolutely necessary, then it should be done in a discrete manner, which doesn’t involve a public spectacle that allows bloodthirsty people to celebrate their alleged “supremacy” over a more vulnerable species. I don’t know all the details of alternative ways of killing foxes (nor do I want to), but I don’t think it is necessary for me to know that either. All I know is that death by the teeth of a dozen hounds is not the best way and there are better alternatives.
One pro-hunting protester was quoted in the news as suggesting that the government were trying to “mess up the countryside”. How? What? It just doesn’t make sense. Does country life revolve entirely around hunting? In what way does altruism mess up the countryside? By banning fox hunting, they are not indulging every whim of country folk, but the world does not consist only of human beings.
There is a prevailing attitude of “us and them” – that urbanites don’t understand the special needs of the countryside. That is akin to suggesting that those in the city are stupid and uneducated – that just because they don’t live in the country, they are incapable of learning about or imagining what happens there. In fact it is more likely to be the opposite and a bit of distance from an issue allows people to make a more objective and rational decision.
Whenever some big changes to society are proposed, someone always brings up the issue of jobs being at stake. Keeping people in jobs is not the most important thing in life. People need to be able to adapt to a changing environment. A factory that produced high levels of deadly gases and refused to change it’s practises would be closed, regardless of whether people lost their jobs. If a practise in unethical it should be stopped - this is the way it should be. Industry does not purely serve the purpose of providing jobs – it also needs to contribute something productive (however tiny) to society.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of those pro-hunt supporters who turned up at the Commons yesterday had to be seen to be believed. This is the same demographic who promote themselves as being law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, while criticising animal rights campaigners who resort to direct action. Yet interestingly, reports about yesterday’s events claim that fifteen people are being held over clashes with police and 19 people, including two police officers, were thought to be injured. Very civilised…
At least when animal rights activists protest, they are standing up for vulnerable creatures who are unable to defend themselves. The pro-hunt supporters are trying to preserve their own self interest- thinking only about themselves. The phrase that sums it up is ‘throwing their toys out of the pram’. It’s not about hunting specifically, it’s an ego thing – they are just sore because they weren’t “consulted”. Since when were the general public consulted about the introduction of new laws anyway?
These are people who are not used to their views being ignored. Welcome to the real world, where the government doesn’t always represent your interests, but hopefully, over time, benevolence towards all living creatures will prevail.
Of course, it still has to be debated in the Lords and would not be due to come into force for nearly two years, but fingers crossed!
Of course there are a lot of people who are infuriated by this, namely the upper classes and rural communities, but any rational person can see the gaping holes in their selfish arguments.
Fox hunting is a thinly veiled excuse for a jolly day out riding with their friends – with the added bonus of being able to shed the thin veneer of civilised behaviour and revert to their baser instincts for the day.
Hunt advocates defend it by saying it is a sport. The dictionary defines sport as an activity, usually involving physical exertion that is partaken for pleasure/recreation, often in a competitive manner. A fox is not much competition for a pack of hounds and people on horseback, and it certainly is not getting much pleasure from the activity. The pleasure, therefore, is on the part of the hunters as they watch a helpless fox being ripped apart for their entertainment.
On the other hand, if it is just a sport, why are they reacting to the ban so strongly? If sport is just recreation, why do people take it so seriously? They could easily take up another sport instead – put their energy and “community spirit” into something more constructive. Of course, many people do take sport very seriously – some football fans are like religious fanatics, but then their sport is not harming any other living creatures. If it did involve the exploitation of vulnerable people such as children, nobody would protest against that being banned.
There are also those who defend fox hunting because they believe it is a necessary way of culling a rural predator. As a believer in animal rights, I won’t advocate the deliberate slaying of any creatures unnecessarily, but for the sake of argument, if it is absolutely necessary, then it should be done in a discrete manner, which doesn’t involve a public spectacle that allows bloodthirsty people to celebrate their alleged “supremacy” over a more vulnerable species. I don’t know all the details of alternative ways of killing foxes (nor do I want to), but I don’t think it is necessary for me to know that either. All I know is that death by the teeth of a dozen hounds is not the best way and there are better alternatives.
One pro-hunting protester was quoted in the news as suggesting that the government were trying to “mess up the countryside”. How? What? It just doesn’t make sense. Does country life revolve entirely around hunting? In what way does altruism mess up the countryside? By banning fox hunting, they are not indulging every whim of country folk, but the world does not consist only of human beings.
There is a prevailing attitude of “us and them” – that urbanites don’t understand the special needs of the countryside. That is akin to suggesting that those in the city are stupid and uneducated – that just because they don’t live in the country, they are incapable of learning about or imagining what happens there. In fact it is more likely to be the opposite and a bit of distance from an issue allows people to make a more objective and rational decision.
Whenever some big changes to society are proposed, someone always brings up the issue of jobs being at stake. Keeping people in jobs is not the most important thing in life. People need to be able to adapt to a changing environment. A factory that produced high levels of deadly gases and refused to change it’s practises would be closed, regardless of whether people lost their jobs. If a practise in unethical it should be stopped - this is the way it should be. Industry does not purely serve the purpose of providing jobs – it also needs to contribute something productive (however tiny) to society.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of those pro-hunt supporters who turned up at the Commons yesterday had to be seen to be believed. This is the same demographic who promote themselves as being law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, while criticising animal rights campaigners who resort to direct action. Yet interestingly, reports about yesterday’s events claim that fifteen people are being held over clashes with police and 19 people, including two police officers, were thought to be injured. Very civilised…
At least when animal rights activists protest, they are standing up for vulnerable creatures who are unable to defend themselves. The pro-hunt supporters are trying to preserve their own self interest- thinking only about themselves. The phrase that sums it up is ‘throwing their toys out of the pram’. It’s not about hunting specifically, it’s an ego thing – they are just sore because they weren’t “consulted”. Since when were the general public consulted about the introduction of new laws anyway?
These are people who are not used to their views being ignored. Welcome to the real world, where the government doesn’t always represent your interests, but hopefully, over time, benevolence towards all living creatures will prevail.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Response
16.09.2004 15:24
It's a diversion from the real issues. While the act of hunting can be described as cruel (I'm trying to be as neutral as possible) it is nothing compared to the travesty that is the Global meat industry - 1,000 or even 10,000 foxes a year compared to the suffering endured by battery hens, pigs, cows etc. This 'victory' is a token one at best - it represents a wedge driven between two groups (the Green / Animal Rights movement and the Countryside Alliance) who could have banded together to make the overall lives of animals better in this country. A constructive debate on other issues could have led to a more inclusive wider movement which (although it may disagree on fox hunting, for instance) recognises that there are bigger fish to fry - animal vivesection or transportation of live animals to name but two.
As for the idea that if hunting is only a sport, then why are people bothered - would you be so blase if football was banned? After all, that 'leads' to an increase in drunkeness, disorder and hooliganism? I think not. A sport, or lifestyle, is precious to many people, and regardless of our views of them we should respect that their appreciation and enjoyment of something or some - act deserves our acceptance (acceptance of their appreciation, if not of the act itself).
A little more inclusivity could heal the rifts across the old Left-Right / Urban-Countryside / North-South divides, and lead us towards a future where we can approach discussion points without the shadow of dogma or ideology prejudicing us. We should join together and condem the police brutality, instead of making lame jokes about 'hunters becoming the hunted'.
-Richard
Richard
Can do it all
16.09.2004 15:38
I have heard this argument about 'why are the govt concentrating on fox hunting when there are so many other things they should be tackling' so many times and have yet to have it explained why the government can't do ALL these things?
Why can't they spend time debating and then banning fox-hunting?
And what makes you think that things are not being done to tackle other issues? You are guilty of believing that all parliament does is what you see on the news.
Get real. get a life and celebrate the banning of one of the most odious forms of pleasure in existence.
Jay
Response
16.09.2004 16:13
I don't like it. I think it's barbaric, cruel, a pointless way to spend an afternoon and you wouldn't catch me doing it.
But again, I also think its a diversionary tactic. Jay - I don't think 'all that happens is what i see on the news', hence my belief that its a diversionary tactic to draw the attentions away from bigger issues - like the anti-abortion / gay marriage issue in the States is a plan by Bush to compete the election on ideological grounds. Blair knows that it raises hackles within a broad percentage of the populous. That's why he pulls it out whenever there's something he wants to cover up - for instance the coming impeachment attempts by Johnson et al. Big hue and cry over hunting, some pretty photos of the 'hooligan' Pro-Hunting lobby to splash across the papers and we all forget about the abysmal state of the nation.
If all the effort that went into parliamentary campaigning and grass-roots work against hunting (and the work by the pro-hunting groups) was utilised towards the meat industry, or vivesection, the combined force could achieve real goals. The state of British farming at the present time is abysmal: agri-business looms high on the horizon, with arch-Supermarket owner Lord Sainsbury heading up the parlamentary investigation into G.M. despite having massive vested interests in pushing modified-produce. Would you state that G.M. was a less important issue to yourself or the nation? I wouldn't. Yet there are no marches pro- or anti- G.M., no headlines; Blair's cronies are set to rob the country blind through subsidies and market monopolisation.
The damage to our fragile eco-systems is unmeasurable: G.M. seeds travel and can cross-polinate with non-G.M. varieties, thus spreading throughout the country unchecked. The use of market dominance by the supermarkets forces more and more smaller farmers out of business everyday, leading to an increase in factory-farming conditions (undoubtedly crueler overall than fox-hunting). Yet we protest against a sport / hobby / lifestyle choice enjoyed by a tiny percentage of the population, blown out of proportion by a media keen to debate issues in mono-syllabic binarisms. The horrors of the meat industry pass by unseen by the majority of the polulous; those who would call themselves (and, no doubt, be in actuality) animal rights supporters on the most part (i refer to arm-chair pundits, Daily Mail readers and the silent majority in whose name we commit NVDAs) get more worked up over foxes than over the lively hood of farmers and the millions of animals slaughtered in the name of supermarkets.
[aside: i'm not in favour of a ban on the meat industry, just some severe regulation and a total ban on all factory-style farming, as well as a move to de-monopolise the agri-business and supermarket control.]
I think that we have missed an oppurtunity to come together, try to understand each other's perspective and form a coalition against the greater evils which, even after fox hunting is a forgotten footnote in the annals of history, will no doubt continue to make our lives and the lives of animals a misery.
-Richard
Richard
middle england shock
17.09.2004 10:37
daniel gurney
Big Al and the Countryside Alliance
17.09.2004 11:40
Jittery politicians, anticipating (or orchestrating) protests in the chambers want tighter security and a ban on demonstrations. After all, it could have been Big Al (Qaeda) harbouring an explosive device; so why wasn’t it? Are terrorists too busy planning their next school raid in an obscure Russian village to target the actual perpetrators of war?
The press released maps and diagrams indicating how intruders gained access to Westminster, but still Big Al is scratching his beard, wondering how to sneak up on David Blunkett! Perhaps he is thinking of something more spectacular, like hijacking a plane at Gatwick to murder staff in Canary Wharf, walking into Tony Blair’s office would be too easy.
Then again, he could take a hint from Batman and simply climb the fence at Buckingham Palace to blow up the Windsors, but despite the miraculous events of 9-11, Big Al is not the sharpest tool in the box, he misses golden opportunities grabbed by disgruntled dads and angry fox hunters.
Huntington Life Sciences torture to death more creatures every day than huntsmen kill in a year, but the government is in no hurry to ban vivisection for agro-chemical experiments. Animal lovers who oppose this cruel practice are being branded as terrorists, not compassionate. But will the hunting ban eventually extend to anglers?
The underlying reason for this law is to prevent people from living off the land when they should be purchasing GM food from the supermarket, with a microchip. Country folk are the only ones left in the UK still in possession of guns, capable of self-sufficiency and able to defend themselves.
All that must change.
"Fish are friends, not food" (Finding Nemo - Disney)
Nemo
Talk to the cuntryside alliance ?.........No way !
17.09.2004 15:43
Why ?
Because it appears to be another hierarchical organisation (with possible links to the BNP) that wants to get it's own way to the detriment of anyone that doesn't agree with it's views.
How many of those hunt people in london spoke out against the CJA, TA2000 (or 2001, 2002 etc).
How many have been on a GM action, and maybe helped decontaminate a part of this beautiful planet ?
Maybe some of the people there were there for what they thought were the right reasons - but then the copper who beats the shit out of you on a nonviolent arms fair demo also thinks he's doing the right thing...............
Paul