- This topic has 141 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have just spent an hour reading this thread from start to finish and I have a sense of deja vu. I’ve participated in the fox-hunting argument more times than I care to remember over the years and can not recall a single instance of anyone changing sides during the debate no matter how well (or badly) reasoned the arguments on either side. In many respects the fox hunting issue is a pale reflection of more important sectarian and religious divisons in the world today. Once people feel their arguments are not being heard and they are fighting for survival against a hostile enemy, negotiation ceases and the scenario is set for violence and civil disobedience. Whatever Ian says, democracy is not about the oppression of the minority by the majority.<br>Do not underestimate the strength of feeling involved. To many rural people, the urban dwellers, who buy their meat sanitised and plasticised and would poison invading rats while ‘Disneyfying’ foxes, are now an alien nation. Civil disobedience defeated the poll tax. It will be interesting to see what it does for fox-hunting.
Turtle said:
To many rural people, the urban dwellers, who buy their meat sanitised and plasticised and would poison invading rats while ‘Disneyfying’ foxes, are now an alien nation.
I think the feelings are to a large degree mutual: they have certainly been accentuated by the recent behaviour of those fighting for "countryside causes".
It’s the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this government’s anti-hunting stance which I find most repellent.
If they were to ban ALL field/blood sports, including angling, shooting and ritual slaughter, then whilst I might not agree with it, it would at least have the merit of consistency.
A few questions for anti-hunting folk to answer please:
1. Why is it going to be ok to use dogs to hunt rabbits but not to hunt mink?
2. Why is it that foxhunters are supposed to get off on the "kill" of a fox, when they are most likely hundreds of yards away, yet anglers, who are only feet away from their struggling victims, do not?
3. Since the current problems suffered with illegal hare-coursers receive no attention whatsoever from the police, how do you suppose the police are going to deal with all these newly-banned sports? From what areas of crime prevention and/or villain-catching should police resources be diverted?
Minorities aren’t ”oppressed” by having to accept the will of the majority.
So, the jewish people in Germany in the 1930’s who lost many of their basic rights (pre holocaust) due to the policies of a populist government weren’t oppressed?
What about the refusal in the USA to give black people the vote (up until the 1960s in most parts of the USA, still applicable in certain parts of Florida)?
Not oppression (dict – kept down by unjust use of force or authority)?
I said in my first contribution to this thread that democracy at it’s worst is 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.
While, I don’t regard the banning of hunting as oppression, to suggest that the majority can’t vote to keep down a minority, seems a strange claim to make.
I would suggest a trip to the history section of your local library.
Steve
Ian. My granddad was a coal miner in South Wales after growing up as a Barnardo’s boy He died of lung cancer brought on by his work. I grew up in a mining community and probably had more real understanding and sympathy for their cause than most. Don’t tar me with any brush Ian. I am not some stereotypical ‘toff’. Neither is anyone else I know who supports the hunting cause. I am not part of an easily defined group. Life is not as black and white as you would apparently like it to be.
Quote: from Venusian on 12:19 am on Sep. 20, 2004[br]
3. Since the current problems suffered with illegal hare-coursers receive no attention whatsoever from the police, how do you suppose the police are going to deal with all these newly-banned sports? From what areas of crime prevention and/or villain-catching should police resources be diverted? <br>
<br>from not hounding motorists!
Ian, regarding those points…
1) So the reason that people are going to be allowed to continue hunting rabbits with dogs, but not mink with dogs, is that people who hunt rabbits have more serious expressions on their faces than hunters of mink. Really?
2. So fish don’t feel pain? Well, certainly a lot of discomfort then – but you haven’t answered the question of why anglers on the riverbank don’t get off on animal suffering, but hunters, hundreds of yards away from the "action", do.
3. Certainly, more police would better enable the legislation to be enforced, but what chief of police would use such extra forces, in the unlikely event of them being made available, to police hunting, when there are more than enough real crimes to keep them busy? In the last few years, since the banning of selected field/blood sports became a live issue, all police spokesfolk, while not exactly saying outright that they won’t enforce any ban, have hinted very strongly that they’re not going to waste too much police time and resources on it.
steve,
You’re an intelligent man, so the extreme examples you drag up show you’re just wilfully ignoring the underlying sentiment behind my posting.
Ian, as far as I understand it your position is that, in a democracy, minorities are at the mercy of the will of the majority.
Am I right?
And, if the minority aren’t happy with the restrictions placed upon them by the majority, they shoud obey the law while they campaign against it lawfully (ie in whichever way the majority give them freedom to campaign).
Right again?
Then you claimed that "Minorities aren’t ”oppressed” by having to accept the will of the majority".
I gave examples which I believe show that they can be and have been.
You’ve accused me of dragging up "extreme examples", what kind of examples should I bring up?
Debatable ones?
IMO, they were clearcut evidence that the argument you made was simply wrong (both factually and morally).
I think they are evidence that there are times the majority will should be opposed.
Civil disobedience helped give black people in the US equal rights.
If they did as you suggest, maybe they still wouldn’t have these rights. Or maybe they just would have had to wait another 10-20 years.
It was the same lawlessness that ended communism in most of Eastern Europe.
My position, and this goes back to page 2 of this thread, is that, once you start voting away the freedoms of different minorities
(1) where do you stop?<br>(2) what happens when it finally comes to the point that you’re the minority?
I’ve also queried the justification behind the ban.
I’ve tried to challenge the idea that there’s an animal rights issue behind this legislation by raising the issue of the rights of cows (as the majority of people in this country haven’t voted away their right to eat meat).
So, if the ban isn’t for the benefit of the animals affected by hunting, who is it for?
I said (again back on page 2), that I’d like the goverment to work on a bill of rights.
My view is that the ballot box should always come second to a constitution and a bill of rights.
With a bill of rights, minorities would have greater protection from the arrogant, ignorant and hypocritical<br>misuse of power by the majority.
Yours seems to be that the majority should be aloowed to decide the freedoms of each and every person. <br> <br>Spoken like a member of the majority.
I suggest a trip to your nearest mirror.
Meaning what?
If I was to look in the mirror, what would I see?
Steve
Ian
You’ve mentioned people’s "rights".
In fact you said "human rights", but as that is a loaded expression, I’m going to just use the word "rights", ok?
The point I’ve been trying to make is that, at some point, people should have rights which can’t be voted away by the majority.
Unalienable rights.
Democracy doesn’t offer that. Democracy offers the opportunity for the majority to force their view on a minority to whatever degree they choose.
It seems to me that, in this instance, the majority are happy to take away the hunters’ freedom to hunt on an "animal rights" issue.
However, the majority have no desire to vote away their own right to have animals killed for meat.
This, to me, is democracy at its worst.
I’ve no idea how many hunts there are in the UK each year or how many foxes are killed annually by hunts, but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that it’s fewer than the number of animals killed for meat in a single day.
If people want to stand up for the rights of animals, then they can start at their own dinner table.
If they’re not willing to make that sacrifice, then what right do they have to force others to make sacrifices?
If you think black people being disenfranchised and discriminated against is literally the same as pro-hunters not being allowed to supervise and socially delight in the ripping to shreds of foxes, well words fail.
Another one of your straw man arguments Ian.
Go back to my post at 12:28 and you’ll see the following "I don’t regard the banning of hunting as oppression".
Will you have the courtesy to reply to the following?
<br>——————————————————————————–<br>I suggest a trip to your nearest mirror.<br>——————————————————————————–
Meaning what?
If I was to look in the mirror, what would I see? <br>
Steve<br>
Ian
I answered that in my previous posting at the start
You’re right. I apologise.
However, again, you’re claiming I said things I didn’t.
I never described hunting as an unalienable right. Nor did I describe watching racing (or boxing) as an unalienable right.
What I said was that democracy doesn’t offer unalienable rights.
(nor is it the only form of government that makes it illegal to shoot people in the street.)
My repeated point in this thread has been that this legislation is the majority imposing rules that, in reality, have no effect on them about a subject they really don’t understand while, at the same time leaving themselves free to behave in ways which have a similar end result as the behaviours they have outlawed.
Now, I could simply say that I feel that this is a misuse of democracy. However, I think that it’s more accurate to describe it as evidence of a "design flaw".
That’s why I believe that "the ballot box should always come second to a constitution and a bill of rights".
Now, if this was just a one-off thing and had no bearing on any other freedom, I wouldn’t really give a s**t
.However, it isn’t something that exists in isolation.
What’s going to happen with the people who’ve been campaigning against foxhunting for the last few years?
Will they just sit with their feet up? Or will they go after other activities. Like racing?
Remember, there are plenty of people out there which think racing is a cruel sport (just as many people here think that foxhunting is cruel).
And we may find that, when it comes down to it, those people are regarded as "cool" while we racing fans are regarded as "rich, out of touch, inhumane throwbacks to a less civilised time".
Which side will the media come down on?
What’s the more memorable image on TV, a group of horses coming home safe and sound or a terrible fall of a chaser?
While the joys of foxhunting have always been a mystery to me, I think the glee that many have expressed on this thread is a little shortsighted.
Steve
According to what I read in the paper today, President Tone is now letting it be known that he would now prefer Parliament to opt for the licensing option (as does Alun Michael).
there is a HUGE difference between voting rights and a crappy so called sport…
Even if the banning will "ruin" Otis Ferry’s life…
Racing’s problem – and the Countryside Alliance’s, come to that – is that, in insular fashion, they just ignore the wider public, dismissing the public as ignorant.
Spot On Ian…
There is incredible arrogance eminating from these people.
also,tearing an animal to shreds after terrifying it in the anme of sport? Lets put it this way…if it didnt exist, would it allowed to be introduced?<br>
Ian
"I understand this point, but think that ”have no effect on them” is demonstrably untrue, as a lot of antis feel very strongly about this subject and are therefore clearly emotionally affected by it"
Imagine the following hypothetical situation:
Foxhunting is legal but every hunter unilaterally and simultaneously decides to give up hunting.
If it wasn’t mentioned on TV or in the papers, when would most people notice? Would they ever notice?
I’d only notice if it had a knock on effect on hunter chases.
If I had no interest in racing, I could quite conceivably go a whole lifetime without noticing.
Obviously the hunt sabateurs would notice. Those who campaigned against hunting would notice. But they’re a very small minority.
The majority wouldn’t notice and, I’d argue, don’t have a strong feeling about hunting (they just don’t like it). ÂÂÂ
"”they really don’t understand” is a subjective judgement call by you to which I wouldn’t necessarily subscribe"
I say this because opinions on hunting seem very different in urban areas compared to rural areas (on a general level).
Clearly, the understanding of what foxhunting is different. Different between those have personal experience of it and those who haven’t. (again a generalisation)
What does the average townie really know about hunting apart from the caricatures in the media, viewed from our pre-packed world where we don’t see the death of animals on a daily basis?
Personally, I know little to nothing beyond that.  <br> <br>"and ”leaving themselves free to behave in ways which have a similar end result” depends on how lax you are in applying the definition of ”similar”"
I was referring to the killing of animals for pleasure as that seems to be the crux of the moral argument against foxhunting.
However, "killing animals for pleasure" could also be leveled at meat eaters (for reasons I’ve gone over before).
It’s this idea of forcing one’s own morality upon others that get’s my goat about this ban.
No matter how inconsistent or uninformed that morality happens to be.
Steve<br>
(Edited by stevedvg at 12:57 pm on Sep. 20, 2004)
Clive
I’m sorry you don’t see the connection between the arguments against foxhunting and those against racing.
When you start to read articles in the media about how the "crowd cheered as the horse crashed to the ground, breaking his neck", you might join the dots.
if it didnt exist, would it allowed to be introduced?
You could probably say the same about abortion.
Steve
(Edited by stevedvg at 1:00 pm on Sep. 20, 2004)
I appreciate the concerns that when fox hunting is banned attention may be turned to horse racing – however there is one major point why horse racing will not be banned.
It raises money for the Government.
Racing, with all its peripheral businesses, is a major employer and revenue generator.
Not only the revenue from the bookmakers gross profit tax but also corporation tax & employers NI, the tax & NI paid by employees, taxes raised by fuel duty with horseboxes, owners, trainers & jockeys travelling up & down the country, etc.
Then there would be mass unemployment – and this would cost the government in benefits and in turn raise taxes for the rest of us.
———————————————————————
Do fish feel pain?
We are informed they don’t but who by – anglers.
We are informed that only the old & sick foxes get caught & killed. How do you know how old it is?<br>It might be a youngster that has got cornered. What then?
We are informed that the fox has a fair chance.<br>How fair is digging one out of the ground that has "won" its race for survival?
As for bringing meat eaters into the argument. <br>Farm animals are bred specifically for that purpose. I understand that most lead happy lives and are well looked after until their time has come. It is unfortunate that they have to be slaughtered but at least it is humanely and relatively quick. And done to feed the human race.
If we were all vegetarian could the world grow enough food to feed us all?
And what about Quorn ?
I understand that there is a Quorn hunt every year!
It is surprising to see  a respected journalist like Richard Evans of the reputable  Daily Telegraph newspaper congratulate the louts who staged a desecration of the House of Commons last week and portray them as heros as he does in todays issue.
But then  Mr Evans  thinks rural people should be allowed to  "live according to unofficial rules and customs" with their own code of behaviour.
I would  guess that most Telegraph readers are actually against this cruel animal abuse  even if they tolerate the paper’s  potty, scare-mongering and antiquated editorial line on the subject.
"Heroic acts to brighten a Monday Morning"!
"Loutish acts of a dying breed " IMO
<br>
Well for a start, the INTENTION of racing is not the death of a beast. And if some idiots cheer fallers, so what/ soem will cheer a bouncer hitting aplayer at cricket and a bad cahllenge at football. Ban those too?
Abortion is way off the mark…but in answer to your question, i would say yes. The religous nutters havent runied all our lives yet….
Its the pure killing for no reason other than fun (and the nasty chase) that offends most people…
And as for the CA ond the hunters, frankly i think that they cannot accept that they no longer rule this country and that outside their inbred little subsidised world, the world has moved on…
tahts what is really behind all of this…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.