Bring Back Fox Hunting

Damien, you need to get out of the city once in a while, that liberal fog is rotting your brain.

I assure you, no such hierarchy exists out here in the big, wide countryside, where a farmer will kill a fox or a rat with precisely the same amount of forethought as he would swat a fly. The calculation is expediency, and nothing more. And regardless of any argument from the Theory of Evolution, philosophy still generally holds the human race to be fundamentally different to the animal kingdom, being capable of morality and self-awareness. We don't make a taboo out of killing people because we're the most intelligent animal; we do so because as beings, we set ourselves apart and above animals and therefore do not treat each other as animals.

I'm surprised to see you justifying your position on an ill-defined appeal to higher morality ("it just is"). If that's your view, that's fine. However where this thread has been over and over again in the past 4 years is into the territory of what gives one group of people the right to criminalise an activity enjoyed by another group of people. "it just is", is not sufficient justification. Nor is an appeal to "democracy". One of the fundamental ingredients of a stable democracy is the understanding that the winning side will use its power responsibly and not victimise the losers (which, incidentally, is why Egypt is going to hell in a handcart. Morsi won the election, but seems not to have understood everything that entailed). Yet, in "banning" fox hunting, that is what Parliament did. There was no public health issue and the fox as a species was not under threat. There was simply the fact that one group of people didn't like what another group of people was doing, and being the larger group, they acted to ban it.

Thankfully such misuses of our democratic process are very rare. It is on a point of democratic principle that I hope to see the Act repealed.

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, you need to get out of the city once in a while, that liberal fog is rotting your brain.

I assure you, no such hierarchy exists out here in the big, wide countryside, where a farmer will kill a fox or a rat with precisely the same amount of forethought as he would swat a fly. The calculation is expediency, and nothing more. And regardless of any argument from the Theory of Evolution, philosophy still generally holds the human race to be fundamentally different to the animal kingdom, being capable of morality and self-awareness. We don't make a taboo out of killing people because we're the most intelligent animal; we do so because as beings, we set ourselves apart and above animals and therefore do not treat each other as animals.

I'm surprised to see you justifying your position on an ill-defined appeal to higher morality ("it just is"). If that's your view, that's fine. However where this thread has been over and over again in the past 4 years is into the territory of what gives one group of people the right to criminalise an activity enjoyed by another group of people. "it just is", is not sufficient justification. Nor is an appeal to "democracy". One of the fundamental ingredients of a stable democracy is the understanding that the winning side will use its power responsibly and not victimise the losers (which, incidentally, is why Egypt is going to hell in a handcart. Morsi won the election, but seems not to have understood everything that entailed). Yet, in "banning" fox hunting, that is what Parliament did. There was no public health issue and the fox as a species was not under threat. There was simply the fact that one group of people didn't like what another group of people was doing, and being the larger group, they acted to ban it.

Thankfully such misuses of our democratic process are very rare. It is on a point of democratic principle that I hope to see the Act repealed.

But surely it is the very heart of democracy for the larger group to win over the smaller group

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, you need to get out of the city once in a while, that liberal fog is rotting your brain.

I assure you, no such hierarchy exists out here in the big, wide countryside, where a farmer will kill a fox or a rat with precisely the same amount of forethought as he would swat a fly. The calculation is expediency, and nothing more. And regardless of any argument from the Theory of Evolution, philosophy still generally holds the human race to be fundamentally different to the animal kingdom, being capable of morality and self-awareness. We don't make a taboo out of killing people because we're the most intelligent animal; we do so because as beings, we set ourselves apart and above animals and therefore do not treat each other as animals.

I'm surprised to see you justifying your position on an ill-defined appeal to higher morality ("it just is"). If that's your view, that's fine. However where this thread has been over and over again in the past 4 years is into the territory of what gives one group of people the right to criminalise an activity enjoyed by another group of people. "it just is", is not sufficient justification. Nor is an appeal to "democracy". One of the fundamental ingredients of a stable democracy is the understanding that the winning side will use its power responsibly and not victimise the losers (which, incidentally, is why Egypt is going to hell in a handcart. Morsi won the election, but seems not to have understood everything that entailed). Yet, in "banning" fox hunting, that is what Parliament did. There was no public health issue and the fox as a species was not under threat. There was simply the fact that one group of people didn't like what another group of people was doing, and being the larger group, they acted to ban it.

Thankfully such misuses of our democratic process are very rare. It is on a point of democratic principle that I hope to see the Act repealed.

Errm, no. Fox hunting was not banned because some people didn't like what many 'ordinary' people got u to.It was banned because many people believed it constituted unnecessary cruelty to animals.

The way democracy works is that if enough people object to something then it will be legislated against. The fox hunting ban came about through democratic means. There is no point of democratic principle to repeal it any more than there is a reason repeal the abolition of slavery.

[spreadsheet]

we don't like to think about it but we continually 'consume' meat products to the tune of slaughtering about 750,000 animals in slaughterhouses each and every day

and yet none, or not many, of us see the blood on our hands


preferring instead a neatly bar coded version and possible bonus on a waitrose card or similar

Originally Posted by martyh

But surely it is the very heart of democracy for the larger group to win over the smaller group

In democracy, one group wins an election, another loses. It is then for the winner to govern for all, not to favour just its own client group.

A specific measure, criminalising a widely-followed activity for no coherent reason, is a classic example of what not to do with a democratic mandate. The animal welfare argument was, and still is, contested - not that it was ever truly about animal welfare. Let's be clear here - an activity that was a legitimate pastime one day, was a criminal act the next. That is draconian. And the reason for it was neatly summed up as the vote was announced in the Commons by Dennis Skinner, who shouted, "that will show the toffs". It was just an ugly old piece of class warfare.

[spreadsheet]

it was Blair blowing crap to the wind with his 'classless society'

christ! - how I abhor the cretinous peace envoy

the national socialist party in germany were the first to come in under a left wing ticket

Originally Posted by danielf

Errm, no. Fox hunting was not banned because some people didn't like what many 'ordinary' people got u to.It was banned because many people believed it constituted unnecessary cruelty to animals.

The way democracy works is that if enough people object to something then it will be legislated against. The fox hunting ban came about through democratic means. There is no point of democratic principle to repeal it any more than there is a reason repeal the abolition of slavery.

As a point of morality, slavery is different. Slaves are human, foxes are not. This is a fundamental difference. Regardless of ongoing agitation from the "animal rights" lobby, animals, as non-human, do not have rights. Certain species have certain protections for certain reasons.

And I think you are wilfully conflating the concepts of majority rule and minority oppression. There are plenty of things that a majority of people in this country object to, which nevertheless are tolerated and do not become criminalised, because for the most part our representatives recognise that the purpose of democracy is to safeguard freedom, not to restrict it.

Smoking remains legal, despite the extreme harm it can cause. Religious organisations continue to enjoy exemptions from aspects of our equality laws, when religious reasons are cited, despite these legal guarantees supposedly being the hallmarks of a modern, tolerant society.

[dave6x]

Originally Posted by Chris

Because, unlike shooting at random, it ensures the strongest survive?

That is one of the most intelligent responses I have seen in this thread, and so true!

I was born and brought up in a country community in Worcestershire, if a farmer had a problem with foxes he didn't wait for the hunt to convene he went out with a team who baited and shot the foxes. Many farmers in the area I lived in at that time, 50's & 60's, would not allow the hunt on their land due to the damage and disruption they caused. Locally the hunt were seen to be a "gung-ho" band there for a day's "sport", it was not unknown for the hunt in full cry to ride straight across the main roads causing traffic chaos.

I am not pro or anti fox hunting, however the Warwickshire hunts I had to follow as a child due to my favourite aunt in Stratford on Avon being an ardent supporter generally resulted in more horses being injured than foxes killed!

[spreadsheet]

are you - like dr spock from the starship enterprise or some thing jeez

Originally Posted by dave6x

That is one of the most intelligent responses I have seen in this thread, and so true!

I was born and brought up in a country community in Worcestershire, if a farmer had a problem with foxes he didn't wait for the hunt to convene he went out with a team who baited and shot the foxes. Many farmers in the area I lived in at that time, 50's & 60's, would not allow the hunt on their land due to the damage and disruption they caused. Locally the hunt were seen to be a "gung-ho" band there for a day's "sport", it was not unknown for the hunt in full cry to ride straight across the main roads causing traffic chaos.

I am not pro or anti fox hunting, however the Warwickshire hunts I had to follow as a child due to my favourite aunt in Stratford on Avon being an ardent supporter generally resulted in more horses being injured than foxes killed!

and the odd hunter getting his head cut off after trying to confront a guy in a micro light

Originally Posted by Chris

In democracy, one group wins an election, another loses. It is then for the winner to govern for all, not to favour just its own client group.

A specific measure, criminalising a widely-followed activity for no coherent reason, is a classic example of what not to do with a democratic mandate. The animal welfare argument was, and still is, contested - not that it was ever truly about animal welfare. Let's be clear here - an activity that was a legitimate pastime one day, was a criminal act the next. That is draconian. And the reason for it was neatly summed up as the vote was announced in the Commons by Dennis Skinner, who shouted, "that will show the toffs". It was just an ugly old piece of class warfare.

I agree that is how it's supposed to work, but in reality not so much.The campaign against fox hunting had been raging for years even decades before it was banned, it took a Labour government with a big enough majority to end the practice**in other words they served their own client group as you say ,but you could also say as the conservatives had done by not banning it despite overwhelming public support for a ban.

** i can't remember if Labour had included banning fox hunting in any of their manifesto's or was it just something that labour used ,knowing they would have large public support for the ban

Originally Posted by martyh

I agree that is how it's supposed to work, but in reality not so much.The campaign against fox hunting had been raging for years even decades before it was banned, it took a Labour government with a big enough majority to end the practice**in other words they served their own client group as you say ,but you could also say as the conservatives had done by not banning it despite overwhelming public support for a ban.

** i can't remember if Labour had included banning fox hunting in any of their manifesto's or was it just something that labour used ,knowing they would have large public support for the ban

Not banning something isn't serving a client group - it is simply following the basic and worthy principle that you don't restrict people's freedom to go where they like and do what they want unless there are pressing reasons to do so.

The animal welfare argument is highly contentious. What parliament did - as you say, taking advantage of an unusually large Labour majority - was to enforce a moral view on a minority by statute.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

As a point of morality, slavery is different. Slaves are human, foxes are not. This is a fundamental difference. Regardless of ongoing agitation from the "animal rights" lobby, animals, as non-human, do not have rights. Certain species have certain protections for certain reasons.

And I think you are wilfully conflating the concepts of majority rule and minority oppression. There are plenty of things that a majority of people in this country object to, which nevertheless are tolerated and do not become criminalised, because for the most part our representatives recognise that the purpose of democracy is to safeguard freedom, not to restrict it.

Smoking remains legal, despite the extreme harm it can cause. Religious organisations continue to enjoy exemptions from aspects of our equality laws, when religious reasons are cited, despite these legal guarantees supposedly being the hallmarks of a modern, tolerant society.

Slavery is different, but not that different. More people object to unnecessary cruelty against animals than a couple of years ago. This has resulted in legislation again cruelty to animals. The point of the analogy with slavery was that, at the time, to many people, slaves were just short of non-human.

Perceptions change, and your arguments against the fox hunting ban can easily be transposed to slavery. At the time, trading and keeping slaves, was a widely followed practice that suddenly became illegal, because some people didn't like what others were doing. In hindsight, there's little that's Draconian about that.

And I'm not conflating anything thank you. Any form of government is going to be a trade-off between what's considered acceptable and people's liberties. As it happens, animal rights have come to the fore in recent years, and this means that unnecessary cruelty against animals is frowned upon. Just like smoking in the Pub, where others are affected (unless it's the HoP Pub, but that's another matter).

Originally Posted by Chris

Not banning something isn't serving a client group - it is simply following the basic and worthy principle that you don't restrict people's freedom to go where they like and do what they want unless there are pressing reasons to do so.

The animal welfare argument is highly contentious. What parliament did - as you say, taking advantage of an unusually large Labour majority - was to enforce a moral view on a minority by statute.

Isn't the fact that so many wanted it banned and had been trying for so long a pressing reason

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:11 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Slavery is different, but not that different. More people object to unnecessary cruelty against animals than a couple of years ago. This has resulted in legislation again cruelty to animals. The point of the analogy with slavery was that, at the time, to many people, slaves were just short of non-human.

Perceptions change, and your arguments against the fox hunting ban can easily be transposed to slavery. At the time, trading and keeping slaves, was a widely followed practice that suddenly became illegal, because some people didn't like what others were doing. In hindsight, there's little that's Draconian about that.

And I'm not conflating anything thank you. Any form of government is going to be a trade-off between what's considered acceptable and people's liberties. As it happens, animal rights have come to the fore in recent years, and this means that unnecessary cruelty against animals is frowned upon. Just like smoking in the Pub, where others are affected (unless it's the HoP Pub, but that's another matter).

Another more up to date example would be the smoking ban .For years a large campaign against smoking in public places was fought ,people against the ban cited removal of freedom ,pubs and clubs closing ,eventually the ban was introduced and barely a whimper was heard .The 'for' foxhunting side cited removal of freedom ,they said hunts would close (they are bigger and more numerous than ever ,no dogs or horses where slaughtered and people join hunts because there is no fox killed

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Errm, no. Fox hunting was not banned because some people didn't like what many 'ordinary' people got u to.It was banned because many people believed it constituted unnecessary cruelty to animals.

The way democracy works is that if enough people object to something then it will be legislated against. The fox hunting ban came about through democratic means. There is no point of democratic principle to repeal it any more than there is a reason repeal the abolition of slavery.

I think most people were completely indifferent to it actually, much as they are now.

---------- Post added at 00:29 ---------- Previous post was at 00:28 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Isn't the fact that so many wanted it banned and had been trying for so long a pressing reason

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:11 ----------



Another more up to date example would be the smoking ban .For years a large campaign against smoking in public places was fought ,people against the ban cited removal of freedom ,pubs and clubs closing ,eventually the ban was introduced and barely a whimper was heard .The 'for' foxhunting side cited removal of freedom ,they said hunts would close (they are bigger and more numerous than ever ,no dogs or horses where slaughtered and people join hunts because there is no fox killed

More foxes are killed now than ever before, difference is though it's done by rifle or giant bird.