Fox hunting: parliament’s chance to be relevant

Over at Harry’s Place they’re invoking Polly Toynbee to support the nonsense argument that fox hunting’s so insignificant it shouldn’t be on the agenda. It’s the same argument speeding motorists use to argue that the police should ignore their crimes and concentrate on murderers and rapists.

Yet if our increasingly irrelevant parliament is to regain any respect it needs to make time to address all the people’s concerns. Politicos tend to bore the majority of people who care little for the day-to-day business of parliament. Only by addressing – and arbitrating upon – popular issues that capture the public’s imagination can that institution hope to regain its relevance.

Suddenly, parliament going with the clear will of the people and enabling Labour to honour a manifesto commitment, transforms it into a bully of minorities. More nonsense. This is a most vile minority who take pleasure in animal suffering and like to smear the blood of their kills on each other’s faces. Long may they be bullied.

And no issue does more to show up Blair’s incompetence. Instead of quickly executing the 1997 manifesto commitment, Blair decided to renege and seek a compromise where none can be made: there’s no halfway house. He demonstrated that Labour manifesto commitments (many more of which have been broken willy-nilly) are worthless and proved himself untrustworthy. But worse for Tony, he gave the Countryside Alliance all the time in the world to organise and become the biggest thorn in his side. Long may they hound him.

3 thoughts on “Fox hunting: parliament’s chance to be relevant

  1. what’s the problem here stephen? Is it the actual cruelty, or that people take pleasure from the cruelty, that gets people?
    if it’s the latter, that sounds like a “thought crime”…
    if it’s the former, there are surely much bigger fish for the animal lobby to fry, like agro-industry…

  2. Hi Wade
    I think it?s both actual cruelty and enjoying that cruelty, but I don?t agree that that makes it a thought crime. We can look to intention and motive (to have fun) and the celebratory pageantry that accompanies fox hunting. All this reinforces a value system that says that it?s more important to have fun than to stop cruelty.

    Of course there are bigger fish to fry, but that worse things happen is hardly a defence. Priorities tend to be defined by realpolitik, rather than principle. We have an opportunity to ban fox hunting, we should take it.

Leave a Reply