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 is 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.
Go on to O'Barry Ban
Lifted
Return to 19 September 2004 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
