Posts Tagged ‘fox-hunting

30
Jun
10

ireland puts stag hunting cruelty into the history books.

On the 29th June 2010 Ireland banned the cruelty that is stag hunting with dogs. This vital move paves the way forward for banning other blood sports such as fox-hunting and hare coursing. The article below was written just before the vote banning stag hunting took place. We feel it is still valid as it relates to why no blood sport is ever justified so we have not sort to amend the article to the latest news.

————————————————————-

Our response to Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent for his article:

The essence of good land management is murder 

Read his article and then our response. We feel we are more realistic then he could ever be.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

It is staggering to keep reading such weak excuses for animal cruelty? Mr Myers article from the Irish Independent is a prime example of how the press fail to see the reality.

Mr Myers states “Natural selection genetically engineered most stags to escape the hounds’ forebears, the wolf pack, so there is nothing more natural for a stag than to be hunted”

Stag hunts are manmade and have no effect on population numbers of stags at all. They are pointless in the extreme. Just like fox hunting they serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are there for the enjoyment of a tiny few. You can never compare nature to the stupidity of man. A wolf would indeed give chase to a stag and kill. Yet wolves did so to survive. Natures balance was already set when it came to deer’s by the existence of the wolf. It was man after all who wiped the wolf out of Ireland and the UK. The notion that a few stags killed by a stag hunt could make up for natures balance is stretching reality to the extreme.

Ignorance seems rife amongst those that go stag hunting the endless excuses to justify charging around the countryside for miles after mile to terrify a stag. Serves only to show how out of touch with decent society they are. It is right that the Greens and the Irish Labour Party seek to ban the activity for good. In the wider context allowing stag hunting and any form of blood sport brings shame to any nation that allows such stupidity to continue.

Banning stag hunting will not lead to an explosion in deer populations and deep down Mr Myers knows that. It will not also alter the situation with the planting of trees. Yet what is clear is as bit of thought about where trees are planted will destroy the notion that tens of thousands of deer need culling.

Killing animals has seldom anything to do with acting as natures balance. Nature does not need a helping hand in the way it’s assumed. Just because farmers 200 years ago planted hedges and ploughed up the land does not mean nature is on a long term holiday. Given the chance nature would soon take back those fields and trees would once again start to flourish.

It is man that causes the problems in how the countryside behaves. It may come as a shock for some people in the press to learn that there are no straight line is nature. Man has destroyed most of the natural habitat animals use to live in. Yet seem shocked when they seek refuge elsewhere. We are but one species out of many, the ability to talk clearly is still not linked to the ability to think. The countryside is a living breathing environment it is not just another tool for man.

Too much weight is given to the need to raise money from the land instead of preserving it for our wildlife or future generations. A landowner may indeed own land but at what cost. Why should animals and people lose out just because a landowner wants to plough up yet another wood or meadow? If we really care for the countryside we have to remember why it’s there and its purpose in nature. It should never only be seen as a route to make money.

The other notion that without blood sport nature cannot survive shows how little some men understand nature at all. Yet should we be surprised at the ignorance shown, well no for those that support blood sports are forever using such lame claims as a reason to kill. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty; you cannot dress it up and hide it amongst myths of need.

Continue reading ‘ireland puts stag hunting cruelty into the history books.’

Advertisements
18
Feb
10

Hunting ban anniversary – MP warns ‘keep cruelty history’

On the anniversary of the Hunting Act, 18th February, Labours Angela Smith, MP for Basildon and East Thurrock, has issued a warning that the Conservative Party is committed to repealing the Act if it wins the General Election.

Angela said, “Parliament spent many hours debating the detail of the ban on hunting, to produce the Act we have. Now if he were to win the election later this year David Cameron wants to bring back the pursuit of foxes, deer and hares by packs of dogs – I had hoped that in the 21st century we had finally consigned these barbaric activities to the dustbin of history.”

Angela added, “the vast majority of the public support the ban on hunting and want to see our wildlife protected – the vast majority of Conservative candidates would bring back hunting and allow wildlife to be pursued to the death for sport. I hope people will question their election candidates very carefully on this matter. Not many issues are a clear cut ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but on this one it is very easy – either we support the current ban or not.”

Before her election as an MP, Angela built up an expertise on the subject as an officer of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Angela can be conntacted via her website http://www.mpangelasmith.org/

12
Feb
10

Avoiding the questions, the Cameron way

David Cameron says little when it comes to substance on most issues. Labour have rightly shown up his lack of ability to deal with policy, even on hunting he is deceptive over his true intentions. He hides his passion for bringing back animal cruelty by hiding it behind words such as “a Free Vote”.

His favourite ploy, when challenged to explain his support for animal cruelty, is to claim hunting is traditional and a way of life. He will also imply all rural people support hunting despite knowing full well this is not true. If he was to succeed it would be horrendous for our wildlife.

Yet does Cameron care? No, for in repealing the ban he would be the first British Prime Minister to ever scrap an animal welfare law, yet Cameron is less keen to be associated with the reality. He knows its cruel. He and all hunters know that, yet he wants you to believe it’s not as bad as this campaign and others will tell you.

Below is how he responds to people opposed to his plan.  The reply is not from Cameron directly, but instead from his office. This is a standard response that goes out to all that oppose his view.  It’s more than likely that Cameron has never taken the time to read one letter that disagrees with him.

His response however is not really good enough for replying in this way. It shows the typical arrogance we have come to know from him. Where is the level of understanding as to why people are so upset with him. Where is any response to concerns about the suffering of animals that is meaningful and true. Where is his understanding that democracy has spoken and society does not want hunting with dogs back?

Truth is, that regardless of whether you have been a Tory for 30 years, have campaigned for animals or are a constituent who will now back Labour because of his view, Cameron will not be interested unless of course you support animal cruelty.

To add insult to injury his office provides a link to a Telegraph article in which Shadow DEFRA Minister Nick Herbert professes his belief that the ban must go. While doing so, of course, he forgets to tell the readers that he was the Head of Communications for the most pro bloodsport group there was; The British Field Sport Society (BFSS) which is now, of course, The Countryside Alliance…?

The article also fails to mention that Nick Herbert is, or has been, part of a Beagle Hunt Pack…? So, in short, how is a biased article from another one of Camerons bloodsport chums meant to give any balance in response?

We have added an original letter that would receive such a reply… If you compare the two letters you will see how little thought goes into Cameron’s response.

 =========================================================================

We have removed the names of the sender and receiver of this e-mail to help protect peoples identity.

From: CAMERON, David
Subject: RE: HUNTING BAN
To: “‘@@@@@@@@'”
************@yahoo.***
Date: ^^^^, ++++, 2010, +++++

Dear **********

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your  recent e-mail about the Hunting Act.

Continue reading ‘Avoiding the questions, the Cameron way’

26
Dec
09

Labour announces hard-hitting campaign to expose the Tories pro-hunt agenda.

Labour has announced a strong and hard-hitting campaign to highlight the Tories pro-hunting agenda, specifically David Cameron’s own links with the pro-hunt lobby and his own record in supporting attempts to repeal the ban.

Repeatedly the Tory leader has talked about his love of deerstalking and promised that a Tory government, if elected, would hold a free vote on whether or not to repeal the existing anti-hunt legislation.

I am in no doubt that such a move will be swiftly denounced by commentators as class war on go Labour’s part, but let’s get a little perspective here. It is extremely easy to divide the hunt issue on class lines, not to mention strategically beneficial. However, this is not about class.

This is about retaining legislation that, despite the undermining efforts of hunt-goers, outlaws a practise that is barbaric, archaic and of little benefit to ordinary people in the countryside. In my time as a resident in East Anglia, I have encountered many people who have at least supported the ban in principle but would possibly agree that there are still many individuals who insist on flouting the law with impunity.

They’re people with real concerns about animal welfare. It is the duty of us who also oppose the ban to ensure that these concerns are met and used to challenge the pro-hunt lobby.

This is a bold move by Labour, especially because of the way such a campaign will inevitably be interpreted. In these times of recession and recovery, perhaps these issues seem trivial. However, if the Tories and their friends in the pro-hunt lobby will insist on making the legislation an issue, then Labour and animal welfare organisations have a duty to challenge and oppose them, for the benefit of animal welfare and countryside democracy.

25
Dec
09

Hunting Ban Not A Class Issue

If a person commits assault, it is assumed that they will be punished by the law accordingly. If a person steels from a shop it is expected that, that person repays or pays a heavier price for that action.

If somebody commits murder then logic dictates that they are denied their freedom. Now these are all different forms of crime yet that all have something in common.

The law exists because society deems them to be right and just. Why then do hunters feel they have a right to be the only group of people in the land to ignore society’s law? A criminal is deemed to be a person who acts against society or the individual, not for the majority good but for their own personal gain. This can be through profit or motive.

Hunters however seem to struggle with following a law that is laid out so clearly. They assume the law does not apply to them? They assume because they disagree with the law that it means they do not have to respect societies will. So no matter why the hunting ban was introduced they will look for any excuse to ignore it.

One of their favourite excuses for seeking animal cruelty is to hide their actions behind class. You will likely hear yet again that Labour only introduced the law because they hate people with money having fun.  They seem to think that anyone who opposes bloodsport must deep down dislike people with money.   

It’s an easy cop-out to blame the issue on class instead of facing reality. Just like it is to make out the Labour Party is more concerned with a person’s wealth and not animal welfare. Being against hunting has nothing to do with a person’s money, implied or otherwise. People oppose hunting because it is nothing but animal cruelty. Unfortunately for the hunting lobby if they bothered to find out. People from all classes see hunting with dogs as uncivilised and wrong.

The hunting ban came into being because of a shared disgust by decent people who expressed their concerns. Yet the hunters seem oblivious that the British public have spoken loud and clear. They fail to grasp that hunting with dogs has no place in their society. The vast bulk of Labour MPs and party members have always been opposed to hunting with dogs. It is therefore hardly surprising that they would act on the publics concerns.

We have something in the UK which seems an alien concept to the Countryside Alliance and their supporters. Something that has the Conservative Party scratching their heads and something they would rather the public were kept in the dark? It is called Democracy. Something the hunting lobby thinks it is only there for them and on their terms.

That way if they lose they can just ignore the outcome. While the Conservative Party seems to think that if they keep quiet about their intentions. Then the public will not ask awkward questions. Yet they are also very arrogant and for the life of them, can’t work out why repealing the ban is a vote looser.

For when it really comes down to it, you would struggle to pass a piece of paper between the views of the hunting lobby and the parliamentary Tory Party. So when class is used as an excuse you can be sure that Eaton boy Cameron will leap to the hunters and (class) defence. Failing as ever to understand that people’s reactions against him are not where he went to school, but his lack of life experience on anything that matters. 

Class and animal cruelty are completely irrelevant. If a person hunts who is considered poor or wealthy they inflict they same amount of animal cruelty against a living creature. A fox a hare or a stag let alone the poor mink, do not say to themselves. It’s OK I will die in a horrible way but at least the person is rich. They are the victims of a tiny set of people who lack basic humanity. Animals do not see a class distinction, only death.

The hunting world and its backers like David Cameron are good at implying hunters are the victims of society. Not through any sense of injustice or because there is any truth to his words. No, for hunters are portrayed as victims because they used their financial clout to manipulate a so-called free press. They also seek homage from the powerful to continue the myths.

Using money in this way is not about class; it is an abuse of democracy and borders on dictatorship. As soon as people look behind Cameron’s words and they soon see just how hollow his words really are. If the art of deception is to deceive then Cameron should be streaks ahead. Yet the gloss paint over Cameron is looking more and more shabbier these days.

So the next time you hear the claim that being anti hunting is just being anti wealth. Think on why you are against hunting, and ask yourself is that true? That you have based your whole opposition to hunting based on a persons wallet and not animal welfare! Well I imagine you did not have to think long.

Hunting with dogs is about animal cruelty and the attitudes of a tiny section of society who are 100% ignorant to reality. People who chose to put themselves outside of decent society.

Animal cruelty has no class only crime.

31
Oct
09

Anneliese slams Tory hypocrisy over fox hunting

Anneliese Dodds, Labour parliamentary candidate for Reading East, has strongly criticised Conservative leader David Cameron over his plan to force a repeal of the Hunting Act through the House of Commons in aAnneliese Dodds LABOUR PPC for Reading East single day, should his party become the Government following next year’s general election. This announcement came in spite of a statement by the Tories the day before promising to reduce the powers of the executive by ending the practice of limiting the time spent debating contentious legislation. Labour has accused David Cameron of “perverse priorities” and of revealing the true nature of a future Conservative Government.
 
David Cameron, priorities all wrongAnneliese said: “This is proof, if any further were needed, of the perverse priorities of David Cameron and the Conservative Party. It is clear that for all their spin and rebranding, the Tories still care less about the global economic crisis, and how to support hard working families – not to mention this week’s typhoon in Vietnam and the earthquake in Sumatra – than they do about facilitating the barbaric leisure pursuits of their wealthy chums and hunt followers.”
 
On Monday, at the Conservative Party Conference, Shadow Leader of the House Sir George Young said that the Tories would abolish the practice of time-limiting Bills. In a session on “broken politics”, old Etonian Sir George Young said:-
 
“We will abolish the practice of automatically guillotining government bills and give parliament back the time it needs to make real improvements to the law.”
 
However, the Conservatives have today claimed that a Bill repealing theConservative MP Sir George Young, ensuring the system to suit hunters not democracy Hunting Act could be passed within a single day. They said that a Tory administration would use the very powers of curtailment Sir George Young claims to want to eliminate for other proposals, to enable a Tory dominated House of Commons to reverse the hunting ban within one sitting of the House.
 
Anneliese called the double standard an example of “gross hypocrisy” on the part of the Conservatives. She said: “It is clear that the Tories like to say one thing to a room of Parliamentary reform activists, and another to their Bullingdon Club friends. The gross hypocrisy of pretending to be supportive Pandering to a minority seems more important to the Conservatives then major issuesof ordinary MPs upholding their democratic duty by fully debating all proposals laid before them, whilst quietly promising the exact opposite to those who have no interest in Parliamentary scrutiny is simply breathtaking.”
 
She added: “I get the impression the Tories wouldn’t be so keen to derail the democratic process if the sport in question was darts, or something not so beloved of the rich and privileged.”
  
NB the Daily Mail article from the 7th October 2009, “Tories to reverse foxhunt ban within a year”, is available here:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218701/Tories-reverse-Labours-foxhunt-ban-year.html

19
Oct
09

Priorities

I was presenting a ‘Keep the Hunting Act’ petition on the doorstep last week. I found the response very interesting. A vast majority ofPetition respondents signed the petition, admittedly I was in Brighton which is not representative of the nation, but I maintain that the ban has public support, a recent poll suggesting support was at 75%. People who signed the petition were from a cross-section of parties including the Conservatives, in fact the very same poll concluded that 62% of Conservative voters support the ban, yet still the Tory leadership call for a vote. This, to me, seems shocking but support has already been discussed at length on this blog; I want to deal with something else.

One response that I received at the doorstep was very interesting; I was told that our priorities were wrong, that whilst he agreed with the petition he would not sign it. I was told we should be talking about the economy, about jobs. There is some sense in what he said, we need to talk The cruelty of huntersabout the economy, and we need to talk about all the big issues that affect everyone. This does not mean that we should allow the Conservatives to trample on our legacy and pursue their own self-interest. It would be foolish for us to base our whole election campaign on hunting, but we must show people what the Tories will do if they come to power.

The Conservative eagerness to repeal the Hunting Act demonstrates three things. Firstly it shows their continued support for bloodlust something partly due to hunting being embedded deep into Tory culture but also due to the finance the hunt lobby continue to provide for the Tories. Secondly it represents a challenge to Parliamentary democracy, turning back more than fifty years of campaigning, mass public support and . Thirdly it suggests a broader return to the old order, where Conservative MP’s defend their own interests and protect their own hobbies over what is right.

When we look at priorities, the Conservatives want to give themselves and their buddies the right to chase foxes and have their dogs slaughter them; weDavid Cameron want to create jobs for the unemployed, opportunities for the young working generation and help for the most vulnerable. It is not Labour that has their priorities wrong. It is the Conservatives who have gone out of their way to formulate a scheme to bring fox hunting back; we are only defending what is ethically right. Labour has better policies around the key issues and the Conservative lack substance in all the main policy areas. It is our job to raise awareness of hunting and many other issues where the Conservatives are wrongly prioritising and more importantly wrong.




Catch up zone

What’s hot

Fox in Parliament on Twitter

RSS News from the Leuage Against Cruel Sports

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Fox in Parliament Stats

  • 50,357 hits & views

Flickr Photos

2009

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Top Clicks

  • None

Menue