Is The Hunting Act Undemocratic? 

The Countryside Alliance talk a lot about how undemocratic the ‘Hunting Act’ is. In their twisted world view democracy means being able to do exactly as they like. That’s not democracy, it’s anarchy. If they really want to see what anarchy is like in practice they should go to Somalia, it’s not nice. Democracy actually means ‘majority rule’ and since all the polls over the years have consistently shown the majority of people are in favour of a ban, then that means a ban is completely democratic.

A MORI poll in July 1997, showed that 71% of people wanted a ban.
A MORI poll in January 2002 showed that 72% of the public thought that hunting should not be legal.
A MORI poll in March 2002, showed that 62% of people wanted hunting banned immediately.
A MORI poll in December 2002 found that 80% of people considered hunting to be cruel.
A MORI poll in November 2003 found that 69% of people thought hunting should be illegal.
A YouGov poll in September 2004 found that 65% of people wanted hunting banned either immediately or within two years.

Town vs. Country 

But is it only ‘townies’ who object to hunting because they don’t understand country life? Once again the facts don’t bear this out.

MORI conducted a poll at the mainly rural constituency of Eddisbury in Cheshire during the 1999 by-election. 76% of those polled lived on the edge or in the middle of the countryside. The outcome was that 67% supported a ban on hunting and would like to have seen it imposed during the last parliament. Only 27% opposed a ban.

A poll carried out by MORI in Scotland in 2001 showed that 67% were opposed to hunting with dogs compared to 10% who were in favour.

In urban areas 71% were opposed to hunting compared to 62% in rural and semi-rural areas. So clearly there is no evidence of a significant town vs. country split on this issue.

Oppressed Minorities? 

Hunt supporters also like to paint themselves as victims. A minority who’s rights are being attacked by the majority. Frankly, hunters trying to paint themselves as an oppressed minority is even more laughable then their assertion that it’s only ‘townies’ who wanted hunting banned. Whilst tolerance is desirable in a democracy there are limits to what we should be tolerant of.

One of the cornerstone’s of Western democracy is John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’. Mill stated that we should be free to do anything that pleases us providing what we do does not cause harm or hurt to others. It should be noted that to Mill ‘others’ included animals. Indeed, he compared animals to children whom he said were in a similar moral position. They may both be weaker than us, but because they can suffer both fear and pain, we have a moral duty not to hurt them. He also recognised that any abuse of the weak diminishes our society and concluded that governments not only could, but should, act to stop this.

 

 

If the Labour government ever gets round to banning fox hunting, I might as well leave this country and spend the rest of my life skiing. Prince Charles, 2002

The main proponents of hunting are a rich elite who believe it’s their ‘right’ to hunt on land their ancestors stole from the rest of us centuries ago. They also like the fact that hunting reinforces the class system, with them at the pinnacle.

I’ve witnessed scenes not unlike something from ‘Upstairs Downstairs’ played out at virtually every hunt I’ve ever attended. In fact, I swear the ‘terrier men’ and their ilk enjoy being treated as scum nearly as much as the hunt masters enjoy treating them as such.

 

I was about 13 when I first felt the need to protest against hunting. I was brought up in rural Suffolk, and the local hunt was a common sight around Bury St Edmunds having their main gatherings outside the Angel Hotel. There they sat in their silly red coats, drinking their pre-hunt glasses of wine whilst we shouted out our chants. I can remember holding my banner with pride. A pride which turned to despair when they finally rode off.

 

 Over the years that followed I did more of the same. Gradually progressing to getting more involved in the field. Never an official hunt saboteur; we formed our own group which worked alongside them. A small gathering of mixed characters and ages, we banded together outside the kennel throughout the season. Early in the morning, and I mean early, we were there watching and waiting to see which direction the hunt took the hounds. We sprayed citronella, unblocked badger sets, gave lifts to fellow lost sabs and berated the following field whenever we could. For years I followed the Old Surrey and Burstow hunt throughout West Sussex, always intrigued as to how little people were aware of the full scale war that was being raged right under their very noses, each and every Saturday.

 

And then it happened. On one such day the hounds had caught the scent and were in full cry. Hearts racing we ran to a field which by then was surrounded by hunters, some on horses, some on quad bikes, some in Land Rovers and some just on foot. Everyone was staring at the pack which had caught a fox and had begun tossing this frightened, exhausted, tiny little thing into the air, with their teeth ripping it to shreds. The noise was horrendous, I will hear that fox screaming to the end of my days. Other sabs had not yet caught up, and those that had were unable to get to the fox in time. We had failed. Some of us were shaking. Others like me, were sobbing. Throughout this ordeal, four young female hunters, sitting on their horses were laughing. They were laughing at the killing of the fox, and they were laughing at me for crying.

 

Nothing new in this incident you may say. These sorts of things, and worse, happen all the time. But it’s not often you get an epiphany like I did on that day. How could they not share my determination to save this poor defenceless creature? How could they be so happy to watch something so brutal? It was on that day that I finally understood that I couldn’t change these people’s opinion through discourse and intellectual conversation. I realised that although human beings, they were bereft of any emotion or compassion. No, it was on that day that I realised, trying to appease these people would not get us anywhere. The time for talking was over. Carrie Holliman

 

We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned. 1997 Labour Party Manifesto

 

 

Has any bill to pass through Parliament ever had a more tortured and protracted passage than the ‘Hunting Act’ of 2004? This was exacerbated by the fact that the legislation passed came with so many loopholes and exemptions that the people involved in this most odious of ‘sports’ could carry on almost exactly as before. The police to their eternal shame show virtually no will to uphold the law, but instead act as if their role is still to protect and facilitate the hunts as they did before.

 

Hunting Act Timeline 

 

1949: Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting fail to make it onto the statute books. One is withdrawn, the other is defeated on its second reading in the Commons. The Labour government appoints a committee of inquiry to investigate all forms of hunting. The committee concludes: ‘Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue.’

1970: The House of Commons votes for legislation to ban hare coursing. However, the bill runs out of time when the general election is called.

1992: A private member's bill to make hunting with dogs illegal is rejected by the Commons. The Wild Mammals Bill, proposed by Labour MP Kevin McNamara, is defeated on its second reading.

1993: Labour MP and animal rights campaigner Tony Banks fails in his attempt to get Parliament to pass his Fox Hunting Bill.

1995: Labour MP John McFall is unsuccessful with his private member's bill to ban hunting with hounds. The Wild Mammals Bill passes its second reading in the Commons. But it is heavily amended before it falls in the Lords.

May 1997: The Labour Party wins the general election. In its manifesto it promises a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned.

5 November 1997: Labour MP Michael Foster publishes a private member's bill to ban hunting with dogs. The government delivers a blow to the chances of the bill becoming law by refusing to grant the legislation any of its Parliamentary time.

1 March 1998: After the Foster bill passes its second reading in the Commons, the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance organises a massive protest rally in London. An estimated 250,000 people join the countryside march to protest against the bill and threats to other aspects of rural life.

13 March 1998: Hunt supporters celebrate as the Foster bill runs out of time during its report stage in the Commons. The bill is talked out by hunt-supporting MPs who table hundreds of amendments to block the legislation's progress. Mr Foster pledges to fight on.

3 July 1998: Mr Foster withdraws his bill citing the ‘cynical tactics’ of his opponents. He insists that to carry on would deprive other valuable legislation, such as a law on puppy farms, of valuable Parliamentary time. He predicts that fox hunting will still be banned during this Parliament. But he says it is now up to the government to see the job through.

8 July 1999: Prime Minister Tony Blair makes a surprise announcement that he plans to make fox hunting illegal and before the next general election if possible.

21 July 1999: Labour MSP Mike Watson announces plans to put forward a private member's bill in the Scottish Parliament to ban hunting with dogs in Scotland. He predicts the bill could come into force by Spring 2000.

11 November 1999: The government announces it will support a backbenchers' bill on fox hunting.

14 November 1999: Home Secretary Jack Straw announces an inquiry into the effect of a fox hunting ban on the rural economy, to be led by Lord Burns.

March 2000: MSP Mike Watson's bill starts its passage through the Scottish Parliament.

April 2000: Mr Straw looks at producing a bill where MPs choose between the three options of an outright ban, no change and stricter regulation of hunting.

30 May 2000: Labour backbenchers urge the government to put its weight behind a hunting ban or risk losing voters, and Labour MP Gordon Prentice proposes an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to ban the sport.

June 2000: The Burns inquiry says between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs would be lost if hunting was banned, half the number suggested by some pro-hunt groups.

February 2001: Hunting suspended because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

28 February 2001: MPs vote by a majority of 179 for an outright ban as the hunting bill clears the Commons

26 March 2001: House of Lords votes by 317 to 68 against the ban. The hunting bill runs out of time when the general election is called.

June 2001: The Queen's Speech promises another free vote for MPs on hunting.

October 2001: More than 200 MPs back a Commons motion calling on the government to honour its promises and make time for a vote on banning hunting.

February 2002: Scottish Parliament bans hunting in Scotland.

28 February 2002: Ministers ready to set out timetable for a hunting bill.

March 2002: The House of Commons and the House of Lords are asked to choose between three options: a complete ban, the preservation of the status quo and the compromise of licensed fox hunting.

The Commons opted for a complete ban while the Lords chose the "Middle Way" option.

22 September 2002: Around 400,000 people join the Countryside Alliance march through central London.

3 December 2002: Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael unveils the Hunting Bill, which would allow some fox hunting to continue under a strict system of licensing but would outlaw hare coursing and stag hunting. Mr Michael says he hopes the compromise would avoid further lengthy battles between the pro-hunting Lords and the anti-hunting Commons.

26 June 2003: Commons Leader Peter Hain tells MPs he has been advised that major amendments to the bill - such as moves towards a complete ban on hunting - could mean it has to be sent to a standing committee and cause delays.

30 June 2003: An amendment from Labour MP Tony Banks proposing a complete ban is passed by 362 votes to 154.

1 July 2003: Alun Michael says that he would be surprised if there was not a ban on fox hunting, with a few exemptions, by 2005. MPs vote to turn the Hunting Bill into an outright ban on hunting with dogs after five hours of intense Commons debate by 362 votes to 154.

10 July 2003: Hunting Bill clears the House of Commons after MPs give the measure, which makes no provision for compensation, a third reading by 317 votes to 145.

21 October 2003: The bill returns to the House of Lords for its committee stage. A cross-party group of peers throws out MP’s plans for a complete ban and replace them with a licensing regime for fox and stag hunting, as well as hare coursing. But anti-hunting MPs vote for the bill to be re-written to become a wholesale ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. The House of Lords then rejects that call in a vote and the legislation runs out of parliamentary time.

8 September 2004: The government announces plans to give MPs a free vote on the Hunting Bill by the end of the parliamentary session in November. The Bill is similar to the one originally proposed and would lead to an outright ban on fox hunting. Commons leader Peter Hain says, if the bill becomes law, an actual ban on fox hunting would not come into force for two years. This would allow people involved in hunting to wind down their businesses, but also avoids pro-hunting demonstrations during 2005's expected general election campaign.

16 September 2004: MPs again vote for a ban on hunting with dogs as protesters are involved in violent confrontations with police outside Parliament. On the same day pro-hunt demonstrators manage to evade security and break into the House of Commons chamber.

12 November, 2004: Alun Michael urges peers to accept a compromise deal on licensed hunting. Backing this option could stave off the use of the Parliament Act and an outright ban, he says.

18 November, 2004: After a period in which the Bill ‘ping-pongs’ between the Commons and the Lords, where a ban is rejected, Commons Speaker Michael Martin invokes the Parliament Act and pushes the bill into law. The ban is due to come into force on 18 February 2005.

28 January, 2005: Pro-hunt campaigners lose a High Court challenge to the law. Campaigners are granted leave to appeal against the ruling on 8 February and the possibility of asking for an injunction delaying the ban - pending the appeal decision - was talked of.

16 February, 2005: The Countryside Alliance has its latest legal bid thwarted when three Appeal Court judges reject its argument that the Hunting Act is unlawful.

18 February 2005: The hunting Bill becomes law.