Strangely, I don’t often read the Mirror. But this article is absolutely right. Hunting with dogs was banned – democratically, by a decision of the House of Commons, and in accordance with a Labour manifesto pledge – and agitating now to repeal the ban smacks of throwing a sop to what are perceived to be ‘core supporters’ in a mirror image of the way that the hunting ban itself was seen to have done.
I personally don’t much care one way or another about hunting. I think there are more pressing animal welfare issues (battery chickens, for example). I can’t see why, if we need to control foxes, we shouldn’t extract a sport and livelihoods from that need.
I fundamentally disagree with Edward Garnier’s assertion that just because the law is not liked, it is not legitimate. He should really know better. I don’t like the fact that I can’t judge for myself a safe speed to drive at but I still obey speed limits.
The fact is – the hunting ban IS law. Foxes ARE still controlled. Hunting itself is NOT banned. Breaking the law – any law – should mean that you submit to the appropriate punishment when caught. And making a repeal of the ban your top priority for 2009 (even though I suspect that isn’t strictly true) is a complete nonsense. There are far more important things to worry about.
Related posts:
The main point about the Hunting Act has been missed and that is that its origins have nothing to do with foxes or hunting, but everything to do with an old Labour vendetta played out under the shoddy disguise of a welfare measure. Hence why its repeal is important, but not, as some suggest, to appease the Countryside Alliance and its supporters. Any decent Government should scrap law whose origins are unprincipled and application unclear. Repeal should be welcomed by those who oppose hunting as much as by those who support it, as it clearly fails to achieve their objectives at the same time as engendering contempt in the countryside. None of this need be a problem for Cameron. The expectation is that he will repeal the Hunting Act, and if sensible early on and in a pretty short space of time, allowing him to move onto rather more important issues that we all face. There is no need for the protracted farce that labour turned it into. As someone who is not a hunter, I see no contradiction in this position and a modern Conservative agenda. In fact I think it shows a degree of principal that it would be very easy to abandon in the mistaken belief that this could be too hot to handle. The truth is that most reasonable people do not care one way or the other. However, to many, the hunting ban was yet another example of a bossy interfering Government, a point that has been strikingly and increasingly endorsed by the left of centre media over the last few years. In short, repealing the Hunting Act is the right thing to do, morally, practically and politically.
Donna Scott
This always had to do with class envy – despite the fact that the vast majority of hunt followers are what could be called ordinary rural folk. There are indeed many more important things to worry about, but because of the heat and fire this measure will attract, many of this government’s appalling decisions will be swept under the carpet. It’s merely a diversionary tactic.
“We are a group of Conservative supporters, campaigning for the modern, liberal Conservative agenda that will lead to a Tory victory at the next General Election.” Fiona – after reading your last two comments I hope you are kept well away from campaigning for a Tory victory at the next election
Fiona, I think you have just shown why you are neither liberal nor modern. For three centuries, it was also the law in this country, passed by Parliament and supported by the mob, that Catholics were to be ostracised, persecuted and on occasion tortured to death because of what they did in thier private lives. In what sense did parliamentary procedure give that law any legitimacy?
The final comment is utterly ridiculous. Trying to draw an analogy between the diferanchisment of Catholics and the hunting ban shows how far removed from the real world many people involved in the hunting lobby are. Would you draw the same analogy for speeding or cannabis smoking, both of which are participated in by many more people than partcipate in hunting?